A Psychotherapist’s Perspective on Gender, Power & Perfectionism
You walk into the boardroom, you set the standard — clear expectations, strong processes, accountability, no excuses. On paper, this is leadership. Yet you often hear whispers: “She’s rigid,” “She’s unrelatable,” “She’s difficult.” It’s confusing and frustrating: you’re simply asking for clarity and excellence. How did that become “difficult”?
In this article, we’ll explore why high-achieving women who set standards are often penalized, how gender expectations and leadership norms collide, why this dynamic lets the system off the hook, and how you can navigate this terrain without losing your values or your voice.
The Underlying Dynamics
1. Role Congruity & Gender Stereotypes
According to role congruity theory, leaders are expected to display agentic qualities (dominance, assertiveness), while women are traditionally expected to display communal qualities (warmth, supportiveness). When a woman displays agentic leadership, she may violate gender stereotypes, which triggers negative evaluations. A 2023 study found that gender-stereotyped expectations continue to shape how women leaders are perceived. (Frontiers)
2. The Likeability vs Competence Trade-Off
Research has long documented the “likeability penalty”: women who are perceived to be competent but not sufficiently warm are judged unfavorably compared to men. For example, when women behave assertively in leadership, they may be labelled “bossy” or “hard” while men receive praise for the same behaviours. (Forbes)
3. Expectation of Emotional Labour & Relational Work
Women in leadership are often expected to do invisible relational labour: smoothing tensions, being inclusive, maintaining morale. When they prioritise standards (task/structure) over warmth, the relational dimension is judged. The standards-setter is seen as less relational — hence “difficult.”
4. Second-Generation Gender Bias in Leadership Norms
Rather than overt sexism, many organisations espouse equality yet embed gendered expectations: women must lead and be liked, must be strong and nurturing. This second-generation gender bias means you get penalised either way. (Wikipedia)
5. Structural Backdrop of High-Stakes Roles for Women
High-achieving women in high-stakes fields often face extra scrutiny: they may be one of few women in leadership, under higher visibility, held to higher standards, and more easily criticised. When you set standards in that context, you become a visible target.
One article summarised: women leaders face over 30 types of workplace bias even when credentials are equal. (CBS News)
What Happens When You Set Standards — And Why It Backfires
- You’re viewed as “unapproachable” or “cold.” While a male leader who sets high standards might be called “decisive,” a female leader doing the same is often described as “difficult” or “too emotional.”
- Feedback focuses on tone, not content. Much of the critique centres on how you set the standard rather than what the standard is — e.g., “Your style is too demanding,” rather than “The expectation is unclear.”
- You catch the backlash of discomfort others feel. If your standards highlight others’ under-performance or discomfort, the system often flags you as the problem rather than the embedded culture.
- You self-monitor more. You may hold yourself to even higher relational standards (trying to be liked and respected) alongside performance standards — which adds emotional labour and internal conflict.
- You may cut yourself slack less. Because you’ve internalised the need to be perfect (so you won’t be unfairly judged), you set higher expectations for yourself—and this predisposes you to burnout or self-critique.
Therapeutic Insights: How to Lead with Standards — Without Being “The Difficult Woman”
1. Clarify your standards with relational framing
When you set a standard, frame it in terms of shared purpose and values: “We’re aiming for X so that the team can deliver reliably, and I need your collaboration.” This doesn’t dilute the standard — it situates it in relational context.
2. Anticipate the double-bind and name it
Recognise internally: “Even if I lead well, I may still be labelled difficult.” When you expect the double-bind (competent + relational vs competent alone) you’re less likely to internalise it as personal failure.
3. Beware of trying to please and perform
You don’t have to prioritise likeability to lead. Accept that setting standards may make you less liked by some—but you are not unworthy. Reinforce your internal identity: you’re leading because you care about excellence and fairness.
4. Set boundaries around emotional labour
Notice when you are doing extra relational smoothing because you anticipate being judged. Delegate or distribute relational work where possible. Allocate your leadership energy to structure, clarity and follow-through as well as empathetic oversight.
5. Cultivate a support-community of other women leaders
Talking to peers who share the experience of being regarded as “difficult” helps you see how much is relational/systemic—not personal. Shared validation is powerful.
6. Reflect on feedback: Is the question about style or system?
When you receive feedback like “you’re too demanding,” ask: Is the expectation itself ambiguous? Is the underlying support missing? Often the standard is appropriate; the system lacks clarity or resources.
7. Lead with your full self — not just performance
You can maintain high standards while allowing for relational authenticity. When you show that you’re human (you make decisions, you ask for input, you listen) you undermine the “unrelational” label and transform it into “connected leader with clarity.”
Closing Thought & Call to Action
Setting high standards is not a flaw — it’s a hallmark of leadership. What makes it “difficult” is the mismatch between your leadership style and the gendered expectations embedded in organisational cultures. The label “difficult” isn’t about you being too demanding; it’s about the system being unprepared for women who lead clearly, firmly, and relationally.
If you’re a high-achieving woman setting standards and feeling unseen, judged, or misunderstood — you’re not alone.
Ready to lead with clarity, boundaries, and authenticity — and to shift the narrative from “difficult” to “decisive with care”? Book your first session today, and let’s explore your leadership presence, your relational style, and how you can set standards that honour both your authority and your humanity.
Book your appointment here
Works Cited
Agarwal, P. (2018, October 23). Not Very Likeable: Here Is How Bias Is Affecting Women Leaders. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/pragyaagarwaleurope/2018/10/23/not-very-likeable-how-bias-is-affecting-women-leaders/. (Forbes)
Lips, H. M. (2007). Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/09/women-and-the-labyrinth-of-leadership. (Harvard Business Review)
Frontiers in Psychology. (2023). Gender stereotypes in leadership: Analyzing the content and implications. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1034258/full. (Frontiers)
Stevenson, et al. (2025, Feb 12). New Study Uncovers Hidden Gender Bias in Workplace Leadership. INFORMS News Release. Retrieved from https://www.informs.org/News-Room/INFORMS-Releases/News-Releases/New-Study-Uncovers-Hidden-Gender-Bias-in-Workplace-Leadership-Programs. (INFORMS)
