Manager Influence on Employees

🎣 “They didn’t even cc me.” This was how Yumi, a senior marketing director, found out her billion-dollar product had been repositioned, without her input. The project she had been leading for 18 months was suddenly reporting into someone else. She didn’t mess up. She wasn’t underperforming. She just wasn’t "there". Not at the executive offsite. Not at the Friday “golf and growth” circle. Not at the CEO’s birthday dinner her male peer casually got invited to. She was busy being excellent. They were busy being bonded. 🍷 When she asked her boss about the change, he was surprised: “You’re usually aligned with the bigger picture, so we assumed it’d be fine.” In Workplace politic-ish: Yumi was predictable. Available. Yet not powerful enough to be consulted. 🔍 What actually happened here? Women are told to build relationships. Men build alliances. Women maintain connections. Men maintain relevance in power circles. It’s not about how many people like you. It’s about how many people speak your name when you’re not in the room. And in most companies, the real decisions - about budget, headcount, succession, are made off-the-clock and off-the-record. 📌 So, how do you stop getting edited out of influence? Try these: 1. 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗽.    Not the org chart. The whisper network / shadow organistion.    Who gets invited to early product reviews?    Who influences without title?    Start mapping that!     2. 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲-𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗽 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁.    If your name hasn’t been mentioned by 3 different people in senior leadership this month, you are invisible to power, even if you’re a top performer.     3. 𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴.    Skip the webinars and female empowerment panels.    Start showing up where strategy happens: QBRs, investor briefings, offsite planning, cross-functional war rooms.     4. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹.    Schedule recurring 1:1s with lateral stakeholders, not to “catch up,” but to co-build. Influence travels faster across than up.     5. 𝗕𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗿𝘁𝘀.    If you vanished for 2 weeks and no one noticed, you’re not central enough to promote.     🧨 If any of this feels raw, it’s because it is. Brilliant women are being rewritten out of their own stories, not for lack of performance, but for lack of positioning. That’s why Uma, Grace and I created 👊 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿: 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀👊 A course for women who are done watching strategic mediocrity rise while they wait for recognition. It’s not about becoming someone else. It’s about learning the rules that were never designed for us, and playing like you intend to win. 🔗 Get it if you’re ready, link in comment. Or wait until they “assume you’d be aligned,” too.

When we talk about gender pay gaps, are we really getting the full picture? Two weeks ago, I posted about the differences between the “raw” and “normalized” gender pay gap in the USA tech sector. TLDR => The "raw" pay gap measures the overall median salary of men vs. women, while the "normalized" gap accounts for job level and function. The “raw” pay gap is the metric you usually read about in the news and is also the basis of the EU’s DEI reporting requirements. 🇺🇲 In the USA, for instance, the “raw” salary gap for women as a proportion of men comp is 78.06%. Meanwhile, the “normalized" salary gap is 95.24%. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘁𝗮? 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀 (𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗥&𝗗 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲𝘀, 𝗲𝘁𝗰.) Today, let’s go a level deeper and compare the “raw” vs. “normalized” salary pay gaps around the world. And then let’s investigate how dramatic the “representation” rate gaps are for women in leadership and technical positions and how this plays a large hand in dragging down the “raw” pay gaps. _____________ Some observations from around the world: 🇵🇱 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱. Poland has a massive gap between the “raw” (53%) and “normalized” (92%) pay gap. Why? Representation plays a large hand. The second chart shows that only 9% of M5+ (Director+) leaders in Poland are women, and only 11% of Polish engineers are women. 🇧🇷 𝗕𝗿𝗮𝘇𝗶𝗹. Brazil also stands out for two reasons due to its 48% “raw” gap and 80% “normalized” gap. Reason 1: the normalized gap is 80%–the lowest in our study–meaning that representation is likely only one part of the problem. Reason 2: Interestingly, 28% of M5+ Brazilian leaders are women (much higher than Poland), but only 8% of Brazilian engineers are women; 8% is the lowest women engineering representation rate in our study. 🇺🇸 𝗨𝗦𝗔. The USA certainly is by no means perfect. That said, the gender gap numbers are generally better than most countries in our study (aside from perhaps Singapore) in terms of the normalized pay gap (95%) as well as women representation rate in M5+ (35%) and software engineering (19%) roles. This said, there is still a ton of room for improvement; 19% women representation rate among all American software engineers is still a stark statistic. _____________ I’d conclude by suggesting that only focusing on the surface level “raw” gender pay gap is an oversimplified way to view the gender pay gap issue. 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝗽. I welcome your thoughts. #pave #genderpaygap #representation

We rank 129th out of 146 countries on gender pay gap. While equal pay ensures that men and women earn the same for identical tasks, the wage gap captures the broader disparities in earnings across sectors, roles, and lifetimes. So a physician is likely to earn more than a interior decorator, all other things being equal - if you have 20 years of experience you will earn more than someone with half of that… on average... Here are some contributing factors and solutions we can all champion: 1️⃣ Occupational Choices: A quick Google search for "best careers for women in India" surfaces predictable and lower-paying options like teaching, nursing and social media management. Compare that to men’s results—data science, investment banking, engineers, architects, and pilots. These results appear beacuse these careers are getting searched and I worry as women we often "satisfice," balancing societal and familial expectations, while men "optimize" for the highest-paying roles on day 1. It’s time for authentic conversations about these choices. Let’s guide young women to evaluate career paths based on averages, not outliers, and encourage them to aim higher. 2️⃣ Subject Selection in School: Math is often dropped too soon. Many girls give it up because they "don’t like it," but this limits access to high-paying fields like architecture and product design. Schools and parents must help students understand how early subject choices shape long-term opportunities - and that grades will only matter so much. 3️⃣ Continuous Employment: Caregiving responsibilities often push women out of the workforce. Staying employed—whether through flexible roles or reduced hours—builds future earning potential. Women, let’s have honest conversations with our managers about what we need to stay in the game. 4️⃣ Workplace Biases: Even when salaries start equally, biases creep in, slowing women’s growth over time. Transparency in pay and promotions is crucial, but so is equipping women with negotiation skills to fight for what they deserve. Role play with colleagues before your annual appraisal chats, read 'how to be effective' at these, find your path but find it. Some argue that women’s "choices" are their agency and many choose the lower paying tracks to lead fulfilling lives. But if those choices perpetuate disparities, they’re shaped by structural inequities, not freedom. The truth is simple: money is power. If we continue earning less, we’ll keep holding less power—socially and economically. We owe it to ourselves and the next generation to change this narrative. What are your thoughts? How can we address the gender wage gap in your industry? Let’s start a conversation. 💬 #futureofwork #genderequality #equalpay #wagegap

I am (not) your mother, Luke.   Or your sister. Or girlfriend. Or your wife.   I am your boss.   And yet, as a female leader, I often found that my team members unconsciously placed me in a caregiving role. Which triggered in me a need to nurture them, which undermined my authority, and was no good for any of us.   I’m not alone in this. Many of the women leaders I work with in my role as mentor say the same thing. That when they have to make tough decisions, they get reactions that their male equivalents simply don’t have to face.   👩👦 The ‘mother’ role. You’re expected to be nurturing, to provide emotional support and protection. And any criticism may be taken as harsh, like being told off by mummy. 👩 The ‘sister’ role: You’re expected to be friendly, collaborative and fun. Assertiveness can be misread as aggression. 👰♀️ The ‘girlfriend / wife’ role: You’re expected to take on emotional labour, be a supportive ear, or even hand conflict in a soothing manner. These roles are a trap for women in business, where they feel that they have to balance warmth with authority, competence with compassion. And it’s exhausting!   The struggle is real ❌ Women may struggle to progress if they don’t conform to caregiving expectations ❌ Feedback from women leaders is more likely to be taken personally, rather than as professional guidance ❌ Women leaders may try to do it all, fulfilling both emotional and professional expectations – leading to burnout   To avoid this trap, women often try to take on what they perceive as a male archetype – becoming cold and harsh. But that’s not the best way forward. The answer is authenticity. How to be just you ✅ Educate your team and yourself about these biases – knowing about them is the first step to avoiding them ✅ Set boundaries – be clear about professional expectations versus personal involvement ✅ Communicate honestly – don’t feel you have to soften your message, be direct and clear ✅ Support other women – advocate for structures that allow women to lead without having to take on caregiving expectations. It’s time women stopped trying to be everything to everyone and focused on being just the very best version of themselves.   What about you? Are you a female leader who finds herself being put in these boxes? Are you a man working with women who expects them to be the caregivers? Let me know! ⬇️

We all want to reward employees fairly, yet decades of research--and for many people, their lived experience--show that bias persists. In other words, for the same performance, people earn less or more due to managerial error. New research from researchers at our Stanford VMware Women's Leadership Innovation Lab shows that many interventions are only targeting half the problem. Bias shows up both in how managers describe (view) performance as well as how they reward (value) behaviors. Viewing biases often show up in how performance is described differently based on who is performing it. Men’s approach may be called “too soft,” thus “subtly faulting them for falling short of assertive masculine ideals.” Valuing biases can show up as the same behavior being rewarded when men perform it but not when women do. Examples from the research show that men benefitted when their project specifics were described, whereas women were not. So the same description and behaviors showed up in reviews, but they were only rewarded on men’s. What can be done to curb biases? ✅ Standardize specific guidelines for how managers should view employee behaviors and assign corresponding rewards when giving employees feedback and making decisions about their careers. ✅ Help managers catch bias in both viewing and valuing. ✅ Monitor these impacts from entry level to executive leadership. It turns out that as the criteria shift, so can the way these biases work. A key lesson from our research shows that the work takes discipline, consistency and accountability. These steps may seem like a lot of “extra” work, but at the end of the day, managers also benefit when they weed out biases and fairly promote the most talented employees. Article by Alison Wynn, Emily Carian, Sofia Kennedy and JoAnne Wehner, PhD published in Harvard Business Review. #diversityequityinclusion #performanceevaluation #managerialskills

The gender pay gap doesn’t begin at the boardroom. It begins shorter after graduation. According to new FT analysis, men in the UK are earning 14% more than women just five years after leaving university - even when they studied the same subjects. Take maths graduates: men most often go into software development roles, averaging nearly £50k. Women most often go into teaching, averaging £34k. The same degree. Very different outcomes. This challenges the old narrative that the gender pay gap is mainly about “course choice.” It’s not. The disparity starts with how careers are channelled, valued, and rewarded right from the first rung of the ladder. Our own Three Barriers research shows how gender stereotypes, systemic bias, and unequal access to networks compound over time. By the time we get to the C-suite, the gap has widened into a chasm. This is an important issue for organisations: talented women are being funnelled away from the highest-paying, highest-prestige roles before they even have a chance to compete for leadership. This means, if we want more women in senior roles tomorrow, we need to tackle inequity in career pathways today. 👉 I'd love to hear examples of organisations working with schools and universities to encourage women to opt into a wider range of careers. Please share best practices of what your organisation is doing in this space! #GenderEquity #WomenInLeadership #GenderPayGap

“Michelle, can you take the minutes?” Years ago, I was in a meeting with senior executives when my boss turned to me and asked me to take the minutes. My response? “Why? Just because I’ve got a vagina?” Now, was that the most strategic way to handle it? Probably not. Did it get my point across? Absolutely. This moment highlighted a more significant issue: women being assigned non-promotable tasks that do nothing to advance their careers. Taking minutes, organising meetings, and onboarding new employees are essential tasks, but they become career roadblocks when they are disproportionately assigned to women. Managers, ask yourselves: • Who is being asked to take on these tasks in your team? • Are these responsibilities shared fairly? • Are you unintentionally reinforcing gendered expectations at work? Women, next time this happens, try: • “I’ve taken the minutes the last few times. Let’s rotate this responsibility.” • “This task should be shared fairly. Who hasn’t done it yet?” • “I’d like to contribute to the discussion, not just document it.” #WomenAtWork #CareerAdvice #GenderEquity #LeadToSoar

I once sat in a performance review where a female colleague received feedback like, "You need to soften your tone in meetings." Meanwhile, her male counterpart got advice about honing his skills in digital marketing to drive better results. This wasn't an isolated incident. Women are often given feedback on their style—how they speak, how they present themselves—while men are given feedback on their skills and performance. This difference is subtle but significant. When we tell women to adjust their style but don’t offer specific, actionable guidance on improving their roles, we hold them back from real growth. It sends the message that success is about fitting in rather than developing the skills that actually move the needle. The impact? Women miss out on critical opportunities for advancement. They don't get the feedback they need to improve in measurable ways while men are groomed for the next significant role. We need to change this if we want to see more women in leadership. It starts with giving women the same actionable, skill-based feedback we offer men. Instead of vague critiques, we need to focus on growth areas tied to business outcomes. For example, rather than saying, "You need to be less direct," say, "Deepen your analytics knowledge so we can optimize our strategy." Clear, actionable feedback empowers women to build the expertise they need to move forward. It’s how we help them close performance gaps, earn promotions, and contribute to the organization's growth. We all have a role to play in this. Giving women the feedback they need isn’t just about helping them—it’s about strengthening the entire team and creating a more equitable workplace. What’s one way you can provide actionable feedback today? Tired of watching women get vague feedback that holds them back? Subscribe to the ELEVATE newsletter for no-nonsense advice on giving women the feedback they need to grow, thrive, and lead—because it's time we start getting real about progress. https://elevateasia.org/

Excessive hubris can have profound and often detrimental effects on organizations. Organizational Failure: Hubris is a common explanation for various forms of organizational failure. It’s associated with overconfidence, over-optimism, and arrogance, which can lead to poor decision-making and strategic blunders. Overreaching Decisions: Leaders with hubris may significantly overreach themselves, taking risky and reckless decisions. This can result in harmful consequences not only for the leaders themselves but also for the organizations, potentially leading to catastrophic outcomes. Impact on Strategic Outcomes: Organizational hubris shapes how external stakeholders perceive the organization, affects how insiders treat external stakeholders, and influences the relationship among internal stakeholders, especially between employees and top managers. Alienation and Destruction: Hubristic leadership can alienate team members and turn small problems into large, destructive ones. It endangers the business by creating a toxic environment that undermines trust and effective teamwork. Loss of Reality and Isolation: Leaders may lose contact with reality and become progressively isolated, leading to hubristic incompetence where self-confidence blinds them to the practical aspects of policy and operations. While hubris is important to a certain level, however excessive hubris can be destructive, leading to a disconnect from reality, poor judgment, and ultimately organizational decline. Leaders must be vigilant against such tendencies to ensure the health and success of organizations. #organisationdevelopment #leadershipdevelopment

𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 Ever been in a situation where something goes wrong, and suddenly everyone’s pointing fingers—but nobody’s actually responsible? A deadline gets missed. The “why” turns into a blame game. People start defending, deflecting, or going silent. The real issues stay underground, and collaboration tanks. Energy shifts from solving problems to self-protection. You end up with a culture where people play it safe, avoid risk, and disengage emotionally. What you're tempted to say is: “Can everyone please be professional?” “Can someone explain why this happened?” “This team needs to get its act together.” “Let’s just move on. Next time, do better.” “I don’t want to hear about problems, bring me solutions.” As an emotion-focused psychotherapist, I learnt this term in unpacking systemic communication within families and couples: "Everyone is at fault, but no one is to blame." Because if you listen, the issue isn't what's said in blame but what's felt in one's needs. Blame is the enemy of wellbeing. The key to the deadlock in a culture built on zero-sum games is acceptance, accountability and amends. If you’re a leader (or even just a human at work), you’ve been there. Blame doesn’t just break trust—it breaks wellbeing. Chronic blame creates anxiety, kills psychological safety, and makes even the most talented people start plotting their exit. Here are 5 phrases to navigate the heavy conversation instead. 1. “I can see this situation is frustrating for everyone, and your feelings are valid.” This phrase acknowledges the emotional state of the team without dismissing or minimizing anyone’s experience. 2. “Let’s take a moment—what’s been the most challenging part of this for you?” This question invites deeper sharing and signals genuine curiosity, not judgment. 3. “We’re in this together. What would help you feel supported right now?” This phrase shifts the dynamic from ‘me vs. you’ to ‘us vs. the problem.’ It’s an invitation to co-create solutions, not just assign fault. 4. “I appreciate everyone’s honest emotions. Right now, let’s focus on understanding, not assigning blame.” This directly addresses the urge to blame and redirects the group toward constructive dialogue. It models calm and sets a tone for open communication, as suggested in the documents. 5. “Beneath your frustration, I know everyone is yearning for a better result. What could we focus on as our next step?” This phrase does two things at once: it acknowledges the real, raw frustration in the room (which is so often swept under the carpet), and it honors the positive intent behind it—the collective desire for improvement. The more energy spent on self-protection, the less available for creativity, empathy, and real performance. If you want a team that thrives under pressure, start by removing the sting of blame. Real growth comes when we solve the problem collectively without needing to make anyone the villain.