Barriers to Career Growth

Just by being Black, the level of latitude you're given for behaviour – especially behaviour deemed "bad" – is often completely different. The consequences are harsher and the scrutiny is sharper. Take disciplinary matters, for example. Black employees are often judged more harshly for the same behaviours as their white counterparts. A Black professional might be labelled “difficult”, “angry”, “intimidating”, or “unprofessional” for expressing frustration in a meeting, while a white colleague might be excused as “passionate” or “assertive”. You know the type of comments – “Elizabeth is just expressing how she feels,” or “Johnny was just a bit hot under the collar.” The disparity isn’t just anecdotal – it’s backed up by research into workplace racial bias. Then there’s career progression. Black employees are frequently held to higher standards to earn the same recognition. Feedback like, “You need to prove yourself more” or “be more of a team player” is often levelled at those who have already delivered exceptional results. Meanwhile, others are promoted based on potential or likeability rather than consistent performance. Not sure if this is (or has) happened in your workplace? 1) Look at patterns in employee relations cases – Are Black employees disproportionately disciplined or receiving harsher feedback compared to their peers in similar roles? 2) Examine promotion criteria – Are Black employees expected to overperform just to be considered for opportunities, while others get ahead based on vague ideas of potential or even subpar performance? How do performance and potential ratings for Black employees compare with others? 3) Observe how behaviours are labelled – Is there a difference in the language used to describe similar actions? Are words like “angry” or “unapproachable” disproportionately applied to Black colleagues? For Black women, how are their traits described compared to non-Black women? For Black men, what “advice” is given under the guise of mentorship to ensure they aren’t perceived as “intimidating” or “scary” – particularly when they express frustration or anger? To address this, the first step is noticing the patterns (or not dismissing or acting defensively when it’s pointed out), the second is to question and avoid making assumptions that it is an “unfounded accusation” and the third? Well, that’s up to you. You can either take action or ignore it. I say that only because too many organisations are still struggling to get past the first step 🤷🏾♀️ 📹 Sterling K. Brown

Over the last few years, I’ve switched jobs, given many interviews, and spent hundreds of hours optimizing my resume and profile. During this journey, I made plenty of mistakes that cost me time and opportunities. So today, I want to share these genuine mistakes—and more importantly, how you can avoid them: Applying Randomly & Everywhere: In the early stages, I thought applying to as many jobs as possible was the key. Big mistake! Quality always beats quantity. Lesson: Tailor each application to the job role. Research the company and make sure your resume aligns with their requirements. Ignoring LinkedIn & Online Presence: Initially, my LinkedIn profile was incomplete and poorly optimized. I underestimated the power of LinkedIn visibility. Lesson: Your online presence matters. A complete, active LinkedIn profile attracts opportunities you’d never find by traditional methods alone. Sending Generic Cold Messages: I used to send cold messages like "Hi, can you refer me?" which rarely received replies. Lesson: Craft a concise, clear message. Always include the specific role, job link/ID, your resume, and a short summary of your skills. Poor Resume Formatting: My resume had too many graphics, complicated formatting, and lacked the right keywords. This reduced my ATS compatibility. Lesson: Keep your resume simple, structured, and ATS-friendly. Use clear headings, bullet points, and keywords from the job description. Not Preparing for the "Tell Me About Yourself" Question: I used to treat this question lightly and gave long, vague answers. The interviewer would lose interest quickly. Lesson: Prepare a structured 1-minute summary focusing on your experience, skills, and how you match the job you're interviewing for. Underestimating the Job Description: I didn't closely analyze the job description and often missed key details required by employers. Lesson: Job descriptions are gold. Analyze them carefully and reflect their highlighted skills and requirements in your application and interviews. Overlooking Company Research: During interviews, I would have limited knowledge about the company's products or mission. This made my answers generic. Lesson: Always research the company’s recent activities, products, and news. It helps you answer questions meaningfully and shows genuine interest. Getting Demotivated by Rejections: Early rejections made me question my capabilities, negatively impacting future interviews. Lesson: Every rejection is a lesson. Ask for feedback, reflect, and improve. Rejection means redirection—not the end of the road. Negotiation Mistakes: I used to accept offers quickly without proper negotiation due to the fear of losing the offer. Lesson: Negotiate politely but confidently. Companies expect this. Always understand your market worth, and clearly communicate your value. Have you made similar mistakes or learned something valuable from your own job search? Share your experiences in the comments—let's help each other grow!

LinkedIn just responded to the bias claims. They think they refuted my research. I believe they just confirmed it. Following the recent discussions on whether the algorithm suppresses women's voices, LinkedIn's Head of Responsible AI and AI Governance, Sakshi Jain, posted a new Engineering Blog post to "clarify" how the feed works (link in comments). I’ve analysed the post. Far from debunking the issue, it inadvertently confirms the exact mechanism of Proxy Bias I identified in my report (link in comments). Here is the breakdown: 1. The blog spends most of its time denying that the algorithm uses "gender" as a variable. And I agree. My report never claimed the code contained if gender == female. That would be Direct Discrimination. I have always argued this is about Indirect Discrimination via proxies. 2. Crucially, the blog explicitly lists the signals they do optimise for: "position," "industry," and "activity." These are the exact proxies my report flagged. -> Industry/Position: Men are historically overrepresented in high-visibility industries (Tech/Finance) and senior roles. Optimising for these signals without a fairness constraint systematically amplifies men. -> Activity: The (now-viral) trend of women rewriting profiles in "male-coded" language (and seeing 3-figure percentage lift) proves that the algorithm’s "activity" signal favours male linguistic patterns ("agentic" vs. "communal"). 3. The blog confirms the algorithm is neutral in intent (it doesn't see gender) but discriminatory in outcome (because it optimises for biased proxies). In the UK, this is the textbook definition of Indirect Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. In the EU, this is a Systemic Risk under the Digital Services Act (DSA). LinkedIn has proven that they can fix this. Their Recruiter product uses "fairness-aware ranking" to mitigate these exact proxies (likely for AI Act compliance). The question remains: Why is that same fairness framework not being applied to the public feed? 👉 What We Are Doing About It Analysis is important, but action is essential. I am proud to support the new petition, "Calling for Fair Visibility for All on LinkedIn". This isn't just a complaint; it’s a demand for transparency. We are calling for an independent equity audit of the algorithm and a clear mechanism to report unexplained visibility collapse. If you are tired of guessing which "proxy" you tripped over today, join us and sign the petition (link in the comments).

Last week, I facilitated a discussion at Columbia University for their Women’s Leadership Network and one of the readings I assigned the participants was about the glass cliff and now one week later we have a real-world example of the glass cliff playing out. The glass cliff is the phenomenon that occurs when women (often from racially and ethnically marginalized backgrounds) are able to ascend to leadership positions when the corporation is in turmoil. Many women are tapped to stepped in when a company is mired in controversy. What is happening right now at #Boeing is the perfect example of this. Why are they now elevating longtime female exec (Stephanie Pope) as their new CEO at a time when they are making headlines for all their issues and controversy? 🤔🧐 When the women that are elevated into these leadership positions inevitably fail, people use this as proof of their incapability and incompetence + further evidence of why #DEI “doesn’t work.” We need to recognize this corporate trap and call it out whenever we see it happening because it harms us all. Don’t hire us when your company is in trouble. Allow us to lead and trust us to lead when the company is prosperous and watch how we magnify your organization to new heights. #WomensHistoryMonth

The relocation decisions of male-female couples are predominantly determined by what's best for the man's career: 1. Couples are more likely to relocate when a man is laid off than after a woman is. 2. Men's earnings increase following a couple's move to a new commuting zone, while women's earnings stay the same or decline. This in part because women spend less time working, particularly in the first year after the move when they are more likely than men to be job hunting. The gender gap persists for at least five years and is largest among couples who are in their 20s. The researchers study Germany and Sweden, and attribute the results to relocation decisions being driven by antiquated gender norms. They conclude that "households in both countries place less weight on income earned by a woman compared to a man, particularly in Germany." By Seema Jayachandran, Lea Nassal, Matthew J. Notowidigdo, Marie Paul, Heather Sarsons, and Elin Sundberg. https://lnkd.in/eHSXi5Mj

A couple of news items have me thinking. And frankly, getting a bit agitated. The first was the news that the Kiwisaver gender gap has got worse in the past year. New research from Te Ara Ahunga Ora The Retirement Commission shows a 36 percent gap between the amount men and women are putting into KiwiSaver each year, far outpacing the actual gender pay gap. Men and women are contributing the same percentage of their salaries, but women are disadvantaged by working part-time and taking greater (unpaid) care responsibilities. The other bit of not-unrelated news, is the NZ Herald’s list of top-earning CEOs. Of the top 10 - just one woman. In the 54 CEOs surveyed: seven women. In the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw: I couldn’t help but wonder… WTF is going on here? How have we not come further? Of those top 10 CEO’s companies, how many are reporting on their gender pay gaps? (The answer, according to the Mind the Gap registry: 4) Is there a relationship between perimenopause/menopause support (or lack of it) and the lack of women in CEO roles in our top organisations? AND between perimenopause/menopause and the Kiwisaver gender gap? I think there might be. We know, for example, from the work of Sarah Hogan who found in her NZIER research that 14% of women said they had to reduce their working hours to manage their menopause symptoms, and 6% had changed roles. Twenty percent of women who experienced symptoms said it would have been helpful to be able to make adjustments, but they never requested any, mostly because of menopause and gendered ageism stigma. All of us who are working in menopause education have heard stories from women who - at a critical stage in their careers in midlife - have made the call to step back rather than step up into senior roles, because of the challenges of menopause and the lack of support for them in their organisations. We have to talk more about this. In fifty years we’ve made so little progress… we REALLY don’t want our granddaughters to be still facing these kinds of shocking statistics in fifty years’ time. 

"You're doing a great job. You 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 need more executive presence." 🤦🏻♀️ Oh, okay. Let me just go buy some from the store. Maybe it’s on sale next to gravitas and leadership aura? 🔍 Research shows that women and especially women of colour are disproportionately given vague, subjective feedback instead of clear, actionable guidance. Stuck in their career navigating foggy directions like: "Work on your presence." "Be more confident." "Find a mentor." Let's fix that. 🚫 5 Common Career Staller Feedback & What to Say Instead 🚫 1️⃣ Don't Say ❌ 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭. Lacks specificity, making it challenging to address. 👉Say ✅ I’d love to see you take the lead in client meetings. Your insights are valuable—let’s work on amplifying your voice in those spaces. ↳ 𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵: 𝘌𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 2️⃣ Don't Say ❌ 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. Ambiguous, leaving the individual unsure of what's lacking. 👉Say ✅ Your expertise is valuable—enhancing your presentation skills can increase your impact in executive meetings. ↳ 𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵: 𝘍𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘥. 3️⃣ Don't Say ❌ 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐫. Delays advancement without clear reasoning. 👉Say ✅ Identifying key leaders who can sponsor you for larger opportunities will be beneficial. Let’s work on building those connections. ↳ 𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵: 𝘔𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱. 4️⃣ Don't Say ❌ 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. Vague on what specific experience is required. 👉Say ✅ Gaining experience in 𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 will prepare you for this role. Let’s assign you a project to develop that skill. ↳ 𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳, 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱. 5️⃣ Don't Say ❌ 𝐘𝐨𝐮’𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐲𝐞𝐭. Provides no guidance on areas needing development. 👉Say ✅ "To prepare for leadership roles, consider leading cross-functional projects. Let’s create a development plan together. ↳ 𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵: 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱. Leaders—your words shape careers. The difference between “not yet” and “you’re next” is the clarity of the feedback you give. Give the roadmap—not roadblocks. What is a clear and actionable feedback that you have received that make a difference in your leadership progression? Koon Executive Coach #careerhackwithkoon DM 👉1:1 coaching 👉Leadership Training Program 👉Keynote speaker/panelist

🚫 Most women don’t lack ambition. What we lack is a clear transition between the rules for girls and the rules for leaders. 📉 People say, “Women need to advocate for themselves.” But they forget: many of us were raised to follow rules in childhood that no longer serve us in adulthood As girls, we were taught: ⁉️ Speak up? You’re showing off. ⁉️ Take credit? You’re selfish. ⁉️ Push back? You’re difficult. Then suddenly, somewhere between girlhood and leadership, the expectations flipped, But no one told us when the switch happened. So we get stuck between two rulebooks: 🤔 Be humble. But be visible. 🤔 Be kind. But be powerful. 🤔 Be modest. But get promoted. And when we hesitate, they say it’s because we’re not confident enough. But really, it’s because we’re playing a game where the rules keep changing. Here are five things I have learned and actually work: 🔁 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆. It shapes who you get to become tomorrow. Think long-term. Act like your future depends on it, because it does. 🧹 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲. You’re not interrupting. You’re contributing. Say what you mean. Own your space. 👀 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳. People do. And it’s your job to make sure the right ones are paying attention. 📊 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. Don’t wait until year-end reviews when the memory has faded. Keep a running list of results, decisions, and moments where you moved the needle. If you can’t name your impact, no one else will. 📅 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁. 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗺. Block time each week to share progress, build alliances, and remind people what you’re leading. If you don’t make it part of your schedule, it won’t be part of theirs either. You don’t need to work harder. You need to get 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲. If you’re ready to shift from quietly capable to visibly in charge, join the waitlist for our next cohort of ⭐ From Hidden Talent to Visible Leader. ⭐ 🔗 Link in comments. 👊 If hard work alone were enough, you’d already be in the corner office.

As International Women’s Day nears, we’ll see the usual corporate gestures—empowerment panels, social media campaigns, and carefully curated success stories. But let’s be honest: these feel-good initiatives rarely change what actually holds women back at work on the daily basis. Instead, I suggest focusing on something concrete, something I’ve seen have the biggest impact in my work with teams: the unspoken dynamics that shape psychological safety. 🚨Because psychological safety is not the same for everyone. Psychological safety is often defined as a shared belief that one can take risks without fear of negative consequences. But let’s unpack that—who actually feels safe enough to take those risks? 🔹 Speaking up costs more for women Confidence isn’t the issue—consequences are. Women learn early that being too direct can backfire. Assertiveness can be read as aggression, while careful phrasing can make them seem uncertain. Over time, this calculation becomes second nature: Is this worth the risk? 🔹 Mistakes are stickier When men fail, it’s seen as part of leadership growth. When women fail, it often reinforces lingering doubts about their competence. This means that women aren’t more risk-averse by nature—they’re just more aware of the cost. 🔹 Inclusion isn’t just about presence Being at the table doesn’t mean having an equal voice. Women often find themselves in a credibility loop—having to repeatedly prove their expertise before their ideas carry weight. Meanwhile, those who fit the traditional leadership mold are often trusted by default. 🔹 Emotional labor is the silent career detour Women in teams do an extraordinary amount of behind-the-scenes work—mediating conflicts, softening feedback, ensuring inclusion. The problem? This work isn’t visible in performance reviews or leadership selection criteria. It’s expected, but not rewarded. What companies can do beyond IWD symbolism: ✅ Stop measuring "confidence"—start measuring credibility gaps If some team members always need to “prove it” while others are trusted instantly, you have a credibility gap, not a confidence issue. Fix how ideas get heard, not how women present them. ✅ Make failure a learning moment for everyone Audit how mistakes are handled in your team. Are men encouraged to take bold moves while women are advised to be more careful? Change the narrative around risk. ✅ Track & reward emotional labor If women are consistently mentoring, resolving conflicts, or ensuring inclusion, this isn’t just “being helpful”—it’s leadership. Make it visible, valued, and part of promotion criteria. 💥 This IWD, let’s skip the celebration and start the correction. If your company is serious about making psychological safety equal for everyone, let’s do the real work. 📅 I’m now booking IWD sessions focused on improving team dynamics and creating workplaces where women don’t just survive, but thrive. Book your spot and let’s turn good intentions into lasting impact.

When Moms First was starting out, a lot of people asked me: Why moms? Why not all parents? This is why: https://lnkd.in/eh3gqwPm ------ "This month, the U.S. Census Bureau published a bombshell finding: The gender wage gap just got wider for the first time in two decades ‒ with women now earning just 83 cents to a man’s dollar. That’s maddening. But, for moms at least, it’s hardly surprising. It’s next to impossible to balance work and family in this country ‒ and as this new data shows, women are taking the hit. As the cost of child care continues to soar, women will just keep falling further behind. On paper, there’s no reason to believe that women should be earning less than men. Girls are more likely to graduate from high school and more likely to hold a bachelor’s degree. More women than men go to law school and medical school, and women’s enrollment in MBA programs has reached record highs. In fact, women do earn nearly as much as men ‒ at least early in their careers. On average, women in their late 20s and early 30s are much closer to parity, taking home at least 90 cents on the dollar compared with the guys sitting next to them at graduation or new hire orientation. Then, when women hit their mid-30s, something changes. The pay gap gets wider. It’s no coincidence that that’s precisely when women are most likely to be raising kids. All of a sudden, women are forced to make very hard choices to manage the demands of work and family. As the founder of Moms First, I’ve heard versions of this story from more women than I can count. Maybe mom drops down to part-time so she can make it to school pickup. Or maybe she switches to a new job that pays less but offers more flexible hours. Or maybe she drops out of the workforce entirely, because the cost of day care would have outpaced her salary anyway. Make no mistake, we are talking about moms here. When women are paid less than men anyway (and, in the case of Black and Hispanic women, way less), deprioritizing their careers can feel like the only logical decision, even if it isn’t what they wanted. This creates a vicious cycle, where pay inequity begets more pay inequity ‒ and women are systematically excluded from economic opportunities. At the same time, while women experience a motherhood penalty, men experience a fatherhood premium ‒ working more hours and reaping bigger rewards than those without kids. As Nobel laureate Claudia Goldin put it, when describing her pioneering research on the pay gap, 'Women often step back, and the men in their lives step forward.' Because here’s the thing: The 'choice' to step back from the workforce isn’t much of a choice at all. If grandma isn’t around to pitch in and child care costs more than rent, what other option do you have?"