Performance feedback ought to be a clear mechanism for growth and improved organisational outcomes. Yet, some feedback given to women leaders focuses less on the work itself and more on subjective qualities, such as ‘communication style’, ‘tone’, or ‘approachability’. This often reflects an unstated expectation about gendered behaviour rather than a deficiency in work quality, creating a disproportionate and unfair burden of self-correction.
Consider a formal performance review document where a leader is noted as needing to ‘soften her delivery’ or ‘appear less direct’. Often, these subjective descriptors lack specific, actionable examples tied to project deliverables, team output, or stakeholder engagement. The mechanism at play is a set of unspoken norms, where effective leadership is implicitly conflated with certain presentation styles, and deviations from these unexamined styles are flagged as problems, particularly for women. A male colleague achieving similar objective outcomes might receive different descriptors, or no such comments at all, despite identical objective results.
It is true that a leader’s delivery can genuinely affect their impact. Ineffective communication might alienate stakeholders, lead to repeated misunderstandings that cause project delays, or demonstrably lower team morale, thereby hindering collaboration. This type of feedback is legitimate when it is directly linked to measurable adverse business outcomes and specific, observable behaviours. However, this differs fundamentally from feedback that expresses a mere subjective disapproval of ‘how’ something was said, without demonstrable negative impact on performance or objective results.
Reframing Subjective Input
When confronted with feedback that feels disconnected from your actual work, clarity is the first defence. Request specific, observable instances of the behaviour being critiqued and ask how those instances directly impacted a business outcome. If the feedback is about ‘tone’, ask for the specific words or actions that constituted the problematic tone, and how it prevented a goal from being met or created a verifiable issue.
Document all feedback you receive, particularly noting whether it is subjective or objective. Pay close attention to whether similar objective outcomes from colleagues, regardless of gender, receive comparable feedback. This record helps in identifying patterns where subjective stylistic preferences are being presented as performance deficiencies unique to your behaviour rather than a universal standard applied consistently.
Proactively shift the focus of any discussion about your ‘style’ back to measurable contributions and demonstrable impact. Present your objective achievements and ask how the perceived style issue detracted from these outcomes. By grounding the conversation in tangible results and clearly defined objectives, you move the discussion away from vague generalisations and towards professional accountability.
Organisational Accountability for Fair Evaluation
For organisations, addressing this bias requires more than individual effort. Institutional authorities, including managers and human resources, must standardise feedback criteria to focus on observable behaviours and their direct impact on organisational outcomes. This means providing training programmes for managers on how to deliver constructive feedback that is specific, actionable, and tied to role requirements, avoiding subjective interpretations of personal characteristics.
Organisations should also regularly audit performance feedback for patterns of bias, particularly concerning gendered language or a disproportionate focus on subjective traits for specific demographic groups. Establishing clear, objective indicators for effective communication within the organisation, rather than leaving it to individual interpretation, is crucial. This helps to ensure that ‘communication style’ is evaluated based on its functional effectiveness, not adherence to unexamined behavioural norms.
The practical test for any feedback on ‘style’ is simple: can it be directly linked to a specific business outcome, and would it be given to anyone achieving the same outcome, regardless of perceived ‘style’? If the answer is not a clear and demonstrable yes, then the feedback signals an unexamined expectation about behaviour, not a deficiency in performance.
