Words: Kandace Williamson
Companies have a particular fondness for the language of bravery. Be bold, think differently, challenge the status quo, create new ways of working. The promise here is that your judgement will be valued, your ideas will be welcomed and your ambition will be given somewhere to go.
Still, this follow on is unavoidable. “She’s brilliant, but…”
Unfortunately, this phrase is an all too familiar construct in conversations about women at work. And, what comes after the ‘but’ can have surprisingly little to do with their ability to do the actual job. ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Too direct. Too opinionated. Too intense. Intimating. Even aggressive.
The work is good, the results were there. She overdelivered. Yet, somehow the development conversation becomes a discussion about whether she was sufficiently pleasant while delivering them. Women are encouraged to be ambitious, have a point of view and take up space. Once they do, there comes a second set of requirements: Soften the point, cushion the disagreement, male the challenge feel less challenging.
How much of what we call "professional development” is actually asking women to become easier to approve of?
“If companies believe in hiring the divas like they say they do, they should examine whether women are allowed the same conviction, individuality and ambition as men. The same qualities that got them hired in the first place.”
Feedback on how someone works matters, of course it does. Collaboration, listening, respect, even bringing joy to workplace culture, are all massively important parts of performance and every employee should be accountable for their impact on their colleagues.
“You interrupted three people before they could finish explaining their ideas” gives someone something to work on. “You’re intimidating and aggressive” does not.
Phrasing can turn another person’s discomfort or unconscious bias in many cases into a verdict on a woman’s character, without explaining what actually caused that discomfort. Was she dismissive? Or did she just disagree? Was she disrespectful? Or did she ask the question nobody wanted to answer or even thought of? Those distinctions matter, particularly when personality judgements influence decisions about progression.
The imbalance is measurable. Textio’s 2022 research found that women received 22% more feedback about their personality than men. It also found that women were 11 times more likely than men to report being described as “abrasive.”
In a Stanford University interview in 2016, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that companies should “hire the divas,” describing divas as exceptional people whose conviction, taste and high expectations are the qualities that can help move an organisation forward.
In discussing the point, Schmidt pointed to Steve Jobs as a diva, as someone who described the importance of being able to distinguish demanding, committed talent from those who undermine the team. There is something so interesting about that framing.
An intense personality can become part of the explanation for someone's success. Their demands are understood in the context of what they contribute and there is room to consider the value of their conviction alongside the friction it may create
How often is a high-performing woman given that same consideration?
The “hire the divas” comment becomes more interesting when we ask who actually qualifies as a diva? Admiring conviction in celebrated male leaders is easy. Making room for it in the woman questioning your decision in a meeting requires unconditioning your unconscious bias.
There is something absurd in recruiting someone for their expertise then becoming uncomfortable when they exercise it. Expertise brings judgement. Judgement brings disagreement. Taste brings elevation to an idea. A person hired to improve that work will almost always identify something that needs improving, it’s what they were hired to do.
When those contributions are repeatedly translated into personality problems, the organisation should examine what it is rewarding. Is it developing a strong leader or encouraging a capable woman to shrink and make herself less visible?
I thought this was particularly relevant during Black History Month in the UK. The language used to assess women also carries racial assumptions for some. Words such as “aggressive” and “intimidating” can invoke stereotypes about Black women, giving a supposedly neutral assessment a more harmful and different weight.
Research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology in 2022, found that observers were more likely to attribute Black women’s expressions of anger to their disposition, illustrating how race and gender can shape interpretations of workplace behaviour.
This is where the conversation becomes more complicated. If women in general are expected to soften their authority, Black women can face an additional burden. Having their confidence interpreted through stereotypes they did not create. The same behaviour can be read as leadership in one person and hostility in another.
Few women embody this contradiction quite like Serena Williams. One of the greatest athletes of all time, whose dominance, ambition and refusal to make herself smaller were as much a part of her legacy as her 23 Grand Slam singles titles. Yet throughout her career, she faced scrutiny not just for how she played, but for how she behaved, expressed frustration and occupied space.
Qualities celebrated as competitive fire in male athletes were often interpreted as aggression or arrogance in her. And as a Black woman, those judgements carried an additional weight. It's an uncomfortable reminder that even extraordinary achievement doesn't necessarily afford women the freedom to be unapologetically themselves.
If companies believe in hiring the divas like they say they do, they should examine whether women are allowed the same conviction, individuality and ambition as men. The same qualities that got them hired in the first place.
Leaders should examine their own response to a challenge. Disagreement can be uncomfortable and still be valuable. A strong point of view can improve a decision. And a woman can need to develop a new skill without developing a new personality.
“She’s brilliant” has to count for something before we get to the “but.”
