For decades, we've seen steady progress in expanding opportunities for women in leadership. But new research published in Harvard Business Review suggests that while attitudes may have improved, the day-to-day experience of leadership looks very different depending on who you ask – and much of that difference comes down to how we judge who is ready to lead.

The study revisited a series of surveys first conducted in 1965, asking senior executives many of the same questions over a 60-year period. In 1965, Harvard Business Review published the provocative article, “Are Women Executives People?”, after a survey found that many male executives questioned whether women belonged in executive leadership – not because they lacked ability, but because leadership itself was viewed as a man's role. The survey was repeated in 1985 and again in 2006, using many of the same questions to measure how attitudes evolved over time. The latest 2026 study adds new questions about promotion, meritocracy, and career advancement while preserving the historical comparisons.

The good news is that attitudes toward female leaders have changed dramatically since 1965. The troubling news is that the experiences of men and women in today's workplace appear to be growing farther apart. While attitudes became increasingly positive through 2006, the newest research found a widening gap in how male and female executives perceive leadership evaluation and opportunity. Twenty years ago, men and women responded almost identically when asked whether women were judged more critically in executive roles. About 35% of both groups agreed. Today, that number remains virtually unchanged for men, but has climbed to 90% among women. In addition, 83% of women now believe they must be more exceptional than men to succeed, compared with just 28% of men.

For HR leaders, these findings should prompt an important question: If people experience the same workplace so differently, are our leadership systems as objective as we believe?

The research suggests that organizations often have strong policies but inconsistent practices. Formal promotion criteria may exist, yet visibility, sponsorship, stretch assignments, and leadership opportunities frequently develop through informal relationships. Those informal processes can unintentionally influence who is viewed as "ready" for the next opportunity. The researchers call this pattern underground bias.

The study suggests women are more likely to be evaluated on their proven accomplishments, while men are more often evaluated on future potential. When organizations consistently ask who has already demonstrated every qualification instead of who has the capacity to grow into the role, they may unintentionally narrow their leadership pipeline.

In addition, it is often assumed that women are less willing than men to accept international assignments or other stretch roles. Managers often use that belief, whether they realize it or not, to decide who even gets asked. But when researchers actually tested it, the assumption fell apart. Women turned out to be just as willing as men to take on these opportunities.

This is where HR can make a meaningful impact.

Organizations benefit when they intentionally identify high-potential employees early, provide equitable access to stretch assignments, create transparent promotion criteria, and encourage managers to examine how they define leadership potential. Structured succession planning, consistent documentation, and regular talent reviews can help reduce subjectivity while strengthening the organization's future leadership bench.

HR professionals are uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between policy and practice by ensuring that leadership opportunities are visible, development is intentional, and potential is recognized consistently.