Claire Barrett and I recently published a piece on her Substack, Gentle Consulting, about why a well-structured, well-delivered message still lands differently depending on who delivers it and how gender shapes that gap.
In this live conversation, we went further and explored the lived reality behind the research on how women are heard in professional settings, and some of the nuances that can’t as easily be put into a written article.
To kick things off, Claire described the additional cognitive load that many women carry into high-stakes meetings. This takes the shape of a continuous background process on how their delivery will be read, calibrating tone, second-guessing whether confidence will come across as competence or as something less welcome.
Even individual word choices get scrutinised. Claire talked about the word “passionate,” which sounds like a compliment but sits uncomfortably close to “emotional,” which sits close to “irrational”. And none of those words sound commercial, which is the language most appreciated in senior leadership circles. A mentor once suggested she swap it for “intentional” or “purposeful,” words that would shape how people subconsciously associated with her and her professional brand.
That’s how granular the extra work gets, and nobody accounts for it.
We also talked about an exercise that Claire runs at conferences, where she asks women in the audience to raise their hands if they’ve ever made a suggestion in a meeting that was ignored, only for a man to make the same point later to general approval. Every woman raises her hand. Then she asks how many experienced it in the past week, and about half the hands stay up. It’s the second answer, she said, that surprises the men in the room. That moment of recognition is usually where something starts shifting in their minds.
One of the things I valued most about this conversation was how Claire held two things together. On one hand, there are practical techniques that help individuals get heard: slowing down, pausing more, simplifying language, leading with a recommendation. On the other hand, there’s the honest admission that a system requiring women to work harder just to receive equal attention is itself the problem.
So, the communications advice you have heard is still good. But we cannot pretend that it’s enough.
Towards the end of our discussion, we broadened the lens. The dynamics we covered do not stop at gender. Introverts face a version of it. So do non-native English speakers, neurodivergent professionals and anyone whose natural register doesn’t match the loud-and-certain template that still dominates in most organisations. Ethnicity, disability, age, caring responsibilities and more also play into this in a way that compounds.
Claire’s parting thought was that if you want to make change but don’t have billions to invest in a foundation, you can shift things one conversation at a time. Go home and ask a partner, a daughter or a colleague: has this happened to you? What does it feel like? What are the signs I might not notice?
Between now and the next meeting you chair, our suggestion is a small one: pay attention to who you’re hearing, and to who you are not. Once you start noticing, there’s no turning back.
The full article is on Claire’s publication, Gentle Consulting. I’d encourage you to read it and subscribe! 👇
Enjoyed this piece? Become a paid member and get my Consulting with AI prompt library, the full Asking Questions Like a Pro course ($199 standalone), practical templates from a decade of fieldwork, and discounts on many other resources. 🔗 See everything included in the paid tier.
