When Leadership Doesn’t Quite Fit: What 150 Women Leaders Taught Me About Identity

For a long time, I couldn’t quite name the tension.

In boardrooms. In conversations with senior women who were visibly capable — but quietly exhausted.

It wasn’t performance.

It wasn’t ambition.

It was something subtler.

I decided to formally research what I had been observing informally for years: leadership identity conflict among leaders from underrepresented groups.

More than 150 leaders and emerging leaders across 21 countries contributed to the study.

The question was simple:

What happens when who you are doesn’t quite match what leadership is supposed to look like?

The answer was clear.

The Conflict That Doesn’t Show Up on a P&L

Over 40% of participants reported significant internal identity conflict. This means psychological stress about who they should be at work.

Not because they lacked capability.

But because they were navigating two simultaneous pressures:

Be authentic AND Fit the model.

This form of strain — self-identity conflict — was statistically associated with:

• Lower confidence

• Negatively impacted wellbeing

• A reduced sense of authenticity at work

Despite evidence from my study and those related to it, a focused on identity and traditional leadership expectations is rarely addressed in leadership development programmes.

The Invisible Driver: Gender Stereotype Threat

A major contributing factor was gender stereotype threat — the concern that one may be judged against narrow expectations of how a leader “should” behave.

Too soft. Too direct. Too warm. Too ambitious. Too visible. Not visible enough.

The data showed something important:

When stereotype threat increases, leadership identity conflict rises sharply.

What surprised many people was that this pattern held across industries — including those widely considered inclusive or progressive.

Policies can evolve faster than expectations.

Who Feels It Most?

There’s an assumption that younger generations experience less tension around leadership and gender, because of more fluid expectations about who should behave in what way.

The research suggested otherwise.

Women earlier in their leadership careers reported higher levels of identity conflict than those with more years’ experience.

It may be that time helps integration.

Or that early-stage leaders are more exposed to scrutiny and external signalling about what “good leadership” looks like.

Either way, the strain is measurable.

What Reduces Leadership Identity Conflict?

Two factors stood out in the data.

1. Identity Integration

Women who reported pride in both aspects of their identity — as women and as leaders — experienced significantly lower conflict.

Not splitting. Not suppressing. Not overcompensating.

Integration.

This aligns closely with the work I do with clients: strengthening identity coherence rather than teaching behavioural performance.

2. Paradox Mindset

Paradox mindset — the ability to hold seemingly opposing traits at once — played a protective role.

It didn’t directly remove identity conflict.

But in environments where stereotype pressure was high, it significantly reduced psychological strain.

If you can accept it is possible to be both “warm” and “assertive” without seeing them as mutually exclusive, tension becomes more manageable.

Paradox mindset isn’t just relevant for gender.

It supports innovation, creativity, strategic thinking and sustainable leadership more broadly.

Why This Matters for Organisations

Leadership identity conflict doesn’t present as a headline issue.

It looks like:

Over-preparation

Hesitation

Emotional load

Burnout

Quiet attrition

You can have strong diversity policies.

You can invest in leadership development.

But if leaders still feel they must adapt who they are to be credible, performance remains heavier than it needs to be.

This contributes directly to the “leaky pipeline” at senior levels.

This Is Not About Fixing Women

It’s about examining the friction between identity and expectation.

Organisations can respond by:

• Auditing for hidden behavioural expectations

• Elevating diverse leadership styles visibly and consistently

• Designing development that builds identity integration, not correction

• Developing paradox mindset capability across leadership teams

• Providing targeted support for early-stage senior leaders

Leadership identity conflict is common. It is measurable. And it is addressable.

But only if we recognise that not all performance strain is operational.

Sometimes the tension isn’t about skill.

It’s about fit.

And when identity work lands, something shifts.

Decisions feel lighter. Confidence stops being something you have to manufacture.

That’s the work beneath the work.

If this resonates — whether in your organisation, brand or leadership team — it may be worth a conversation.