Jennifer Jordan

For women leaders, the stakes and scrutiny are often higher. How can they reframe
their professional narratives to view setbacks not as evidence of inadequacy, but as
essential, data-rich chapters in their ongoing learning process?

You’re right that women often face greater scrutiny — research consistently shows they’re judged more harshly than men for the same behaviors. I’m not fully convinced, however, that the stakes are always higher, because more doors are opening for women globally. But regardless of stake level or gender, the advice is the same:

Leadership success requires a growth mindset.

Setbacks aren’t proof of inadequacy. They’re evidence that a leader is pushing beyond the comfort zone — the place where learning happens most intensely. In the moment, setbacks rarely feel good. But over the long term, wisdom and character are formed from them. Leaders who embrace this mindset see each challenges as experiences that strengthen their capability.

Many high-achieving women are conditioned to be the ‘perfect student’, one who knows the right answer. How does this conditioning conflict with a growth mindset, which requires curiosity? What are the first steps to unlearn this and embrace being a perpetual learner in leadership?

This is a great question. Not only is being the “perfect student” not conducive to a growth mindset, it is also not conducive to be successful in the boardroom. Many of the directors and chairs with whom I speak say that one mistake that women often make – because, on average, they do prepare for board meetings more thoroughly than do their men counterparts – is to appear as the best student in the room; the eager one with all the answers. This undermines their maturity as leaders.

And, as you write, it also doesn’t help foster the growth mindset. Allowing for a growth mindset in the face of expectations to perform requires a sense of adventure and curiosity – but also a secure base: someone or something that a leader can rely on for emotional support when times get challenging. Unfortunately, once we become adults, it is really tough to develop our curiosity. But we can always develop secure bases in our lives, which give us the confidence to explore and not fear failure quite as strongly.

Women are often told to be authentic, but also to adapt their style to fit existing, often masculine, leadership models. In your research, how have successful women leaders navigated this tension as part of their learning journey?

The “be authentic” advice is one that drives me mad. Most organizations only want people’s authentic selves if those selves fit comfortably into the context. That said, this is not a tension specific to women. Men also have to navigate a world where they are told to “be authentic”, which means being strong, not showing emotion, dominant, et cetera.

There is significant evidence demonstrating that successful women leaders take the approach of presenting both masculine (e.g., assertive, risk-taking, dominant) and feminine (e.g., communal, caring, comforting) traits. That is, they are androgenous in their behavior. AND the most successful women present the feminine traits before the masculine. That is, they first
“show up” as communal, caring, and comforting before they show their more assertive, risk-taking, dominant sides. By first confirming gender stereotypes, the social context around them “licenses” them to show the gender disconfirming behaviors.

Organizations often focus on fixing the pipeline of women, implying the issue is with the women themselves. From a systems perspective, what are the most critical leaks (in the organizational plumbing) that leadership must repair to create a genuinely inclusive culture?

I’m not opposed to developing women in the pipeline — and development isn’t synonymous with “fixing.” All leaders, regardless of gender, need growth. I’ve never met a flawless leader.

But from a systems perspective, the real “leaks” occur when organizations fail to support leaders through pivotal life and career stages (e.g., supporting reintegration after childbirth or parental leave), ensure equal access to high-value development opportunities, and provide diverse role models at the top – leaders who show that there is no single lifestyle or personality that defines success. If everyone at the top looks the same, behaves the same, and lives the same lifestyle (for example, being available 24/7), organizations inadvertently signal that only one type of person can succeed. If that’s indeed the case in the organization (i.e., only one type
of lifestyle can make it to the top), the organization should be transparent and create pathways for any leader, regardless of gender, who wants to pursue that lifestyle.

Tell us some measurable ways an organization can institutionalize sponsorship to ensure women have advocates with power — not just advisors with advice?

This is a tricky one. I’m not a fan of assigning sponsors; chemistry, trust, and genuine commitment can’t be mandated. But relying entirely on ad hoc sponsorship creates a system of “haves” and “have-nots.”

Despite its imperfections, I lean toward organic sponsorship paired with structural support. Organizations can train senior leaders on what true sponsorship looks like, train women on how to proactively seek sponsors and articulate what they need, and raise collective awareness so both sides are more intentional about forming these relationships.

When organizations build literacy around sponsorship — what it is, what it isn’t, and how to engage in it — the organic pairings that do emerge are stronger and more effective.

Progress often focuses on individual women “leaning in”. How can organizations work smarter by fostering collective efficacy by creating structures where women can build coalitions, share strategies, and advocate for each other?

This is a great question – as we know that minority groups often do better when they band together. However, the answer to this question is a bit of a Catch 22: Women cooperate and support one another most effectively in environments where women are already well represented. But achieving that strong representation requires the very cooperation and mutual advocacy that underrepresented environments lack.

In other words, the very conditions that would help women flourish only emerge after women have already flourished.

To break that structural trap, organizations must create such favorable conditions through intentional policy, sponsorship structures, governance requirements, and leadership modeling, rather than waiting for the system to self-correct.