I Had to Be Independent to Succeed - Then Got Criticised For It
“A man has to be Joe McCarthy to be called ruthless. All a woman has to do is put you on hold.”
Years ago, I applied for promotion at a law firm where the environment made it especially difficult to progress. All the partners in my department were men. Any new client opportunities that came into the firm were passed directly to them. If you weren’t already a partner, you had to generate new work on your own - not easy when most of the work we did involved large, established organisations who rarely changed legal providers.
But I managed it. I identified a major potential client and spent years proactively offering them free training and support. I kept showing up, building trust, and adding value. Eventually, they gave us work. It was a significant win for the firm - and I’d taken the lead from start to finish.
I gave what I believed was a strong presentation to the promotion committee, outlining what I’d done and the impact it would have.
A few days later, I got a call from a male partner. He told me the committee had been impressed, but they had reservations. Apparently, they were concerned that I hadn’t credited others in the department. That I’d presented the win as something I’d achieved independently.
The truth is: I had led the work myself. There had been very little support available, and, in an environment where opportunities weren’t readily shared, I had to create my own. So I was essentially criticised for not lying to the panel! I doubt the same criticism would have been made if I were a man in the same position.
In the end, I did get the promotion. But what happened next was almost more infuriating. The same male partner told me he’d reassured the committee on my behalf and helped persuade them to go ahead with promoting me - as if I hadn’t already proven my worth. It felt like even in success, a man had to insert himself into the story to legitimise it.
This is a classic example of the double bind that faces many women in professional roles: I had to be independent and proactive to succeed - and then was criticised for being exactly that.
So what’s going on here?
Part of the answer lies in the idea of gendered traits. Research shows that both men and women associate certain characteristics with being more masculine or more feminine.
For example:
Masculine traits are typically seen as: assertiveness, independence, authority, ambition, rationality, and competitiveness.
Feminine traits are typically seen as: empathy, warmth, cooperation, emotional intelligence, supportiveness, and humility.
Neither set is better than the other, but when women demonstrate traits seen as more masculine (like independence or authority), studies have shown that they’re often judged more harshly. They may be seen as competent but not likeable. And if they lean into more feminine traits, they risk being perceived as likeable but not leadership material.
This is what psychologist Alice Eagly calls role incongruity: the idea that women are evaluated against conflicting expectations. You're expected as a woman to be warm and communal, while leaders are expected to be assertive and self-assured. You can’t satisfy both.
I’m writing about this in a chapter for a forthcoming book about gender bias in the legal profession. In my chapter, I’ll explore how women in law can use both sets of traits, without losing themselves, to step into powerful, authentic leadership.
And I’d love to hear from you.
Have you ever faced this kind of double bind?
Have you been told you were too confident, too direct, not collaborative enough - even though you were simply doing what the situation and your job demanded?
Enjoy the rest of your week.
Rachel