Janelle E. Wells, Ph.D., and Doreen MacAulay, Ph.D.
Our (In)visible Work
Diploma in hand and dreams in motion, a historical number of women graduates are stepping into the workforce this summer, ready to lead, innovate, and break barriers. Early career roles are where many are eager to showcase their talent. It’s a chance to prove themselves, showing they’re dedicated, flexible, and how well they fit with the company’s culture. But moving from the backgrounds in the “behind-the-scenes get-the-job-done roles” to more visible positions? That is a different kind of challenge.
Despite making up nearly 50% of entry-level positions, according to McKinsey & Company, after the first promotion, women’s presence drops by 10% and then continues to decrease with every leadership step, falling to just 29% female representation at the C-suite level. This isn’t about ability. It’s about visibility, and a deeper problem known as the double bind.
The Power (and Cost) of Visibility
Being visible at work isn’t about showing up. It’s about being seen for your ideas, heard in meetings, and recognized for your contributions. Visibility helps determine who gets the promotions, the project, the next big opportunity.
When women stay behind the scenes or aren’t invited to key conversations or relationships, their talent and potential can go unnoticed. This isn’t because they aren’t qualified, but because they haven’t been given the access to be visible in networks that matter. Four decades after the research on the topic, it has only become more exacerbated in male-prevalent industries, as women tend to be isolated and segregated from networks and leadership opportunities based on their gender. Limiting their access to high-powered resources. You know the inside info, the decision makers, and those who control the purse strings.
Now, visibility alone doesn’t guarantee recognition. Research shows that women are often taught and expected to be good team players, but not always how to promote their individual achievements or connect their work to business outcomes. As scholars note in the Journal of Applied Psychology and leadership consultant Susan L. Colantuono calls it, “The Missing 33%,” strategic, financial, and business acumen need to be seen and heard. Without explicit performance metrics, women are perceived as less competent, less influential, and even less likely to have played a leadership role on the team. Speaking of leadership, these perceptions of women’s leadership capabilities are critical to their promotability.
The Double Bind Dilemma
The double bind is a pervasive issue, a lose-lose scenario that women have experienced far too often in the workplace. The relentless 30-year scholarship of social psychologist Alice Eagly reveals that society expects women to be the team player, displaying qualities such as nurture, helpfulness, and compassion, conveying warmth and support. In contrast, men are associated with being direct, aggressive, ambitious, conveying control and assertion, which have long been aligned with leadership stereotypes. As a result, society has difficulty separating leadership and gender stereotypes—resulting in women leaders being in a double bind.
Be decisive and assertive, and you’re called aggressive. Be warm and collaborative, and you’re seen as too soft to lead. It’s a trap for women built on outdated stereotypes where they are expected to be both strong and likeable, yet punished no matter which direction they lean. Vilified in performance reviews and leadership potential assessments, leading to a lack of promotability. These contradictory expectations don’t just shape how women are perceived, they shape what they’re allowed to become.
