Are You Actually Promoting Talent Or Confidence?
Let’s play a game.
In this game, you are presented with 2 candidates and need to guess who of these two candidates just got promoted. Let’s meet the participants:
Candidate A- has consistently exceeded their quarterly targets by 23% for two years running. They deliver projects early, clients love them, and their team retention rate is the highest in the company.
Candidate B- joined six months after Candidate A. Their numbers are decent, nothing spectacular, but they’ve just got that je ne sais quoi that "screams leadership potential."
Who gets promoted?
If you answered Candidate B- your guess is correct. Why? It’s simple: Candidate A is Sarah (female) while candidate B is Jake (male) And that is the promotion paradox, where performance takes a backseat to perceived potential, and where that perception might be more biased than you think.
The Shocking Discovery That Changed Everything
A landmark study by MIT researchers analyzed 30,000 management-track employees at a major North American retail chain and uncovered something that should make every executive pause mid-sip of their morning coffee.
Here's the kicker: Women received 8.3% lower "potential" scores than men, even when their actual performance ratings were higher. And this wasn't just a minor oversight, this single bias explained up to 50% of the entire gender promotion gap.
Think about that for a second… Half of your promotion decisions might be influenced by a psychological blind spot that has nothing to do with actual ability to perform in the role.
But here's where it gets really interesting (and slightly infuriating): When researchers tracked these employees over time, they found that women who received the same "potential" scores as men consistently outperformed their male counterparts in subsequent evaluations. Yet they still received lower potential ratings the following year.
It's like giving someone a C+ for "future performance" when they've been consistently earning A's, then being surprised when they get another A, and still giving them a C+ for the next round. Even Groundhog Day had better character development.
Where It All Begins
To understand why this happens, we need to go back to the playground. Research on childhood development reveals a fascinating pattern that sets the stage for workplace dynamics decades later.
Studies on risk-taking behavior in children show that boys and girls receive fundamentally different messages about confidence and potential from an early age. Boys are encouraged to take physical risks, speak up boldly, and project confidence even when they're uncertain. Girls, on the other hand, are often praised for being careful, following instructions precisely, and demonstrating competence before taking action.
This early conditioning creates what researchers call the "confidence-competence trade-off." Boys learn to broadcast their potential loudly and frequently, while girls learn to let their work speak for itself. The problem? In subjective evaluation systems, the work isn't speaking loud enough.
Childhood risk-taking research shows that boys are more likely to display facial expressions that communicate confidence (like smiling while taking risks), which leads others to perceive their behavior as lower in risk and higher in potential success. Meanwhile, girls who show more cautious expressions are perceived as less capable, even when their actual performance is superior.
This pattern doesn't magically disappear when we enter the workforce. It shows up in every meeting where someone interrupts to share a half-baked idea (confidence) versus someone who waits to speak until they've thoroughly researched their point (competence).
The Business Case for Fixing This (Spoiler: It's Enormous)
Now, before you start thinking this is just about fairness and feel-good policies, let us hit you with some hard business numbers that'll make your CFO weep tears of lost opportunity.
The MIT study found that marginally promoted women consistently outperformed marginally promoted men. Translation: Your company could improve manager performance by favoring women on the promotion margin.
Think of it this way: If you're consistently promoting people based on a flawed metric (perceived potential over proven performance), you're essentially leaving better managers on the table. It's like having a draft where you consistently pick players based on how confidently they talk about their game instead of their actual stats.
But wait, there's more! (We know, we sound like a late-night infomercial, but stick with us here.)
The study also revealed that women are significantly less likely to leave when passed over for promotion. Men who were passed over were 35-40% more likely to quit, while women with the highest performance ratings were only 10% more likely to leave after being passed over. So not only are you under-promoting better performers, but you're also losing the wrong people when your promotion decisions inevitably create frustration.
Why "Potential" Became the Problem
Here's where it gets psychologically fascinating. The use of subjective "potential" ratings has exploded in corporate America over the past decade, with most large organizations now using some version of the Nine Box grid system that plots performance against potential.
The theory makes sense: Past performance doesn't guarantee future success, especially when promoting someone into a different type of role. You want to identify who has the capacity to grow, adapt, and lead at the next level.
The execution, however, has been spectacularly biased.
When managers rate "potential," they're essentially making predictions about future performance based on a cocktail of observable behaviors, gut feelings, and (whether they realize it or not) deeply ingrained stereotypes about what leadership looks like.
And here's the plot twist: Those stereotypes aren't just about gender. They're about confidence style. We've collectively decided that the person who speaks first and loudest in meetings, who volunteers for high-visibility projects, and who naturally self-promotes has more "potential" than the person who delivers consistent results, asks thoughtful questions, and builds strong team relationships.
The Confidence Performance Theater
Let's be honest about what we're really rewarding when we prioritize "potential" over performance. We're applauding confidence theater- the corporate equivalent of jazz hands.
We've all watched executives get promoted based on their ability to confidently present mediocre ideas with the conviction of someone announcing they've discovered fire. Meanwhile, the people actually putting out fires (metaphorically speaking) are told they need to "develop more executive presence."
But here's what's particularly maddening: The MIT research showed that women continued to receive lower potential ratings even after they demonstrated superior future performance. It's like your promotion process has developed selective amnesia that only forgets evidence contradicting its initial bias.
The Real Cost of This Blind Spot
Let's do some quick math that'll either make you laugh or cry (possibly both):
If women are 14% less likely to be promoted despite higher performance ratings, and promoted women consistently outperform promoted men, your organization is essentially:
Under-utilizing your highest performers by keeping them in lower-level roles
Over-promoting people who will perform worse in management positions
Creating a retention problem among your best talent (though ironically, the people you should be promoting are too professionally devoted to actually leave)
Perpetuating a cycle where leadership continues to look like people who are good at self-promotion rather than people who are good at the job
It's like optimizing your hiring process to select for people who are great at interviews rather than people who are great at the work. Oh wait, we do that too.
What Forward-Thinking Companies Are Actually Doing
The good news? Some organizations have cracked the code on this, and their approaches are surprisingly simple.
Structured evaluation processes: Companies that implement standardized promotion criteria and scoring rubrics see dramatically more equitable outcomes. When you remove the subjective "I know it when I see it" element of potential assessment, performance data starts carrying the weight it deserves.
Blind review processes: Some companies have started conducting initial promotion reviews with identifying information removed, focusing purely on achievement metrics and 360-degree feedback scores. (Yes, like blind auditions for orchestras, which famously increased female musician hiring by 30-55%.)
Potential redefinition: The smartest companies are redefining "potential" to include demonstrated abilities like team development, customer retention, process improvement, and crisis management- metrics that actually predict management success rather than just meeting room charisma.
Promotion tracking and transparency: Companies that track and publicly report promotion rates by gender (and other demographics) see those gaps close faster than companies that don't. Funny how accountability works.
The Plot Twist: This Isn't Just About Gender
While the MIT study focused on gender disparities, the underlying issue, rewarding confidence over competence, affects anyone who doesn't fit the traditional "leadership presence" mold.
Introverted high performers get overlooked for extroverted average performers. People who build consensus get passed over for people who make unilateral decisions. Detailed thinkers lose out to quick talkers. And in all these cases, organizations end up with leadership that's optimized for getting promoted rather than actually leading.
It's like we've collectively decided that the most important leadership skill is the ability to convince people you should be a leader. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty terrible way to select leaders.
The Action Plan: What You Can Do Right Now
Here's where we get practical. No more analysis paralysis- time for execution.
This Quarter:
Audit your last 10 promotions. What percentage went to the highest performers versus the highest potential ratings?
Implement structured promotion criteria with specific, measurable achievements
Start tracking promotion rates by demographic and make the data visible to leadership
Next Quarter:
Train managers on unconscious bias in potential assessment (spoiler: they all have it)
Introduce blind review elements to your promotion process
Create 360-degree feedback systems that include team development and results delivery metrics
This Year:
Redefine "potential" to include demonstrated leadership behaviors rather than projected ones
Implement promotion threshold analysis to ensure you're promoting the right people
Create transparent pathways for advancement that emphasize achievement over advocacy
The Bottom Line: Stop Leaving Money on the Table
Look, we get it. Changing promotion processes isn't as sexy as launching a new product or acquiring a competitor. But if you're systematically under-promoting your highest performers while over-promoting people who are better at talking about work than doing work, you're basically running a leadership development program for your competitors.
The MIT research is clear: Organizations could improve management performance by fixing their promotion biases. That's not a nice-to-have diversity initiative, that's a competitive advantage sitting in plain sight.
So here's our challenge to you: Take a hard look at your last five promotions. Ask yourself honestly: did you promote performance, or did you promote potential? And if it's potential, what exactly were you measuring, and how do you know it was the right thing?
Because in a world where talent is the ultimate competitive advantage, can you really afford to keep promoting the wrong people for the right reasons, or worse, the wrong people for the wrong reasons?
The data doesn't lie. The only question is: What are you going to do about it?
Ready to audit your promotion process and unlock the high performers you've been overlooking? Get in touch.
