Women’s Leadership Looks Different — So Why Do We Ignore It?

By Maricel Dicion

For years, women have been told how to lead. How to climb the ladder. How to command a room. How to be assertive, exude executive presence, and claim their space. The assumption? That leadership is a singular, universal concept, and women simply need to learn the playbook and step into it.

But the truth is, the leadership model we’ve been given wasn’t built for women.

Most leadership advice still operates under a flawed assumption — that what works for men will work for women, that confidence is confidence, that authority is authority. But women don’t experience leadership in the same way men do. They are judged differently. They are perceived differently. And when they follow the advice that worked for their male counterparts, they often pay a price.

When we talk about leadership without applying a woman’s lens, we don’t just miss the mark. We actively mislead women about what it takes to succeed. We set women up for a game where the rules were written against them.

The Double Standard We Can’t Seem to Shake

Women have been told to speak up, take up space, and be more assertive. But what happens when they follow that advice?

They get labeled as difficult. As unlikable. As too much.

The same qualities that make a man seem “strong” make a woman seem “abrasive.” A confident man is a leader. A confident woman is “intimidating.” Assertiveness in men is a sign of decisiveness. Assertiveness in women? “Difficult.”

It’s not just an unfair double standard — it’s a structural flaw in how we define leadership itself.

And this isn’t theoretical. Study after study has confirmed what most women already know from experience:

• Women who self-advocate are penalized, while men are rewarded.
• Women who speak up in meetings are interrupted more and credited less.
• Women who hold authority have to counterbalance it with warmth to be accepted.

And yet, leadership advice is often framed as if these realities don’t exist.

The problem isn’t that women lack confidence.

The problem is that confidence is received differently based on gender.

The problem isn’t that women don’t know how to lead.

The problem is that leadership itself has been narrowly defined for so long that we mistake it for neutral.

Women’s Leadership Looks Different — And That’s the Point

Leadership isn’t one-size-fits-all. Women lead differently, not because they have to, but because the path has never been the same.

Women don’t “climb the ladder” in the same way men do. Their pathway up is different. The traditional leadership model assumes a straight ascent — take risks, be visible, climb the proverbial ladder. But for most women, the ladder doesn’t exist. The climb is lateral. Diagonal. A lattice of strategic moves, relationships, sponsorships, and calculated positioning.

Executive presence isn’t just about “owning the room.” It’s about reading the room, understanding the dynamics at play, and balancing credibility with accessibility in a way men don’t have to think about.

Assertiveness isn’t just about speaking up. It’s about leveraging influence differently — knowing when to push, when to pull, and how to make your voice land in a way that drives action instead of resistance.

When we apply a woman’s lens, we stop giving advice that backfires. 

We stop telling women to “just be more confident” without acknowledging why confidence lands differently for them. We stop making women feel like they are the problem, when the real problem is a system that still struggles to recognize leadership when it looks different from the default.

The Leadership Gap Isn’t About Skill, It’s About Recognition

Women are already leading. But leadership is rarely just about the work — it is about who is seen, who is heard, and who is believed.

A man in a position of power is assumed to belong there. A woman in the same position must establish, reinforce, and justify her presence.

Confidence in men is expected. Confidence in women is examined. Assertiveness in men signals strength. Assertiveness in women requires an explanation.

The perception gap is not about ability. It is about the friction women face in roles they have already earned. 

Women lead, but they lead within an architecture that was not built with them in mind. They manage expectations, sidestep unspoken biases, adjust their presence to be competent but not threatening, decisive but not severe, likable but not weak.

For too long, leadership has been treated as something women must prove rather than something they already embody. They are expected to adjust, to navigate, to carry both credibility and likability.

And still, leadership advice continues as if the playing field were level.

As if confidence alone is the answer.

As if perception doesn’t dictate power.

But leadership isn’t just shifting. It’s splintering.

The old mold is cracking, and no single replacement exists.

This isn’t about women assimilating into leadership. It’s about leadership itself being rewritten.

The expectation that women conform is no longer relevant — not because permission was granted, but because the framework itself no longer holds.

Women aren’t waiting to lead.

They already are. And it’s time we start seeing it.