Beyond 'Bossy': How South Africa's Language Shapes Women's Leadership Journey

Natalie Singer
Aug 27
5 min read

When a male executive takes charge of a meeting, he's described as "assertive" and "decisive". When a woman demonstrates identical behaviour, she's often labelled "bossy" or "aggressive". This linguistic double standard isn't just semantics; it's actively shaping the leadership landscape in South African boardrooms and undermining women's career advancement.

Despite South Africa's progressive Constitution and Employment Equity Act, women occupy only 26.5% of senior management positions, while men hold 73.5%. More strikingly, women represent just 17.3% of CEOs and chairpersons in JSE-listed entities and state-owned enterprises, even though they constitute 50.7% of the population.

The Language Trap

Recent research reveals the insidious nature of this bias. Studies show that women can reduce what psychologists' term "assertiveness backlash" by up to 27% simply by prefacing direct statements with "value phrases" such as "I'm going to be as direct as possible here..." or "This is a matter of principle for me, so it's vital I express my opinion clearly..."

The fact that women must linguistically cushion their authority whilst men can exercise it directly highlights a fundamental workplace inequality. Research demonstrates that women are labelled "pushy" about twice as frequently as men, despite men being mentioned nearly twice as often in leadership contexts.

This creates what Stanford researchers call the "double bind": women must appear both competent and likeable, standards not equally applied to men. Research consistently shows that whilst assertive behaviours like asking for a raise or speaking up in meetings can boost male employees' careers, female employees risk being labelled "bossy" or worse for identical behaviour.

The South African Context

South Africa's unique post-apartheid landscape adds layers of complexity to this challenge. Research participants in South African studies shared examples highlighting patriarchy as a common thread within organisations, linking to ongoing societal issues where some men continue to fear the assumed loss of their established power and privilege that gender equity may bring.

Whilst the government has made remarkable progress, with women accounting for 48.6% of the top grades of public service, half of Cabinet ministers, and around 45% of parliamentary positions, corporate South Africa is "performing abysmally", with only 7% of CEOs being women.

The contrast is telling. The government's deliberate policy interventions have yielded results, whilst the private sector's reliance on "organic" change has failed to address deeply embedded biases. It’s little wonder that EEA sector targets, implemented in 2025, seek to “push” the transformation agenda faster.

The Business Case for Change

The persistence of semantic bias isn't just a social justice issue—it's a business imperative. Organisations with greater female board representation show a 21% higher likelihood of achieving above-average profitability, improved corporate social responsibility scores, and reduced strategic and operational risks.

When organisations hire female CEOs and board members, studies using natural language processing of over 43,000 corporate documents found changes in organisational language, indicating that women's presence in leadership actively reshapes institutional culture.

For HR professionals seeking to make a change, performance evaluations represent a critical intervention point. Stanford research found that poorly defined evaluation processes allow gender biases to shape performance assessments, with managers perceiving identical behaviours differently based on the employee's gender.

The language used reveals unconscious bias: men are described as "confident" and "strategic", whilst women displaying the same qualities are called "emotional" or "difficult to work with". Studies show that even seemingly innocuous practices, such as addressing women by their first names whilst using titles for men, can undermine women's authority and position them as less competent.

Practical Solutions for HR Leaders

Audit Your Language: Evaluate performance review templates and associated manager training materials for gendered language. Replace subjective personality assessments with specific, competency- and behaviour-based criteria.
Implement Structured Evaluations: Develop clear, measurable performance criteria that focus on outcomes rather than style. This reduces the opportunity for unconscious bias to influence assessments.
Train Managers on Linguistic Bias: Help managers recognise phrases like "comes across as pushy" or "can be abrasive" as potential red flags. Train them to focus on impact and results rather than communication style that may reflect gendered expectations.
Create Safe Feedback Loops: Establish channels for women to report instances where their leadership style is characterised differently than male colleagues in similar situations.
Champion Inclusive Leadership Models: Move beyond traditional "command and control" leadership definitions to embrace collaborative, empathetic leadership styles that don't penalise women for exhibiting communal traits alongside agentic ones.

The Path Forward

The 2014 "Ban Bossy" campaign led by Sheryl Sandberg highlighted how language stigmatises assertive girls and women, potentially discouraging them from pursuing leadership positions. A decade later, South African organisations have the opportunity to lead this conversation in our own context.

The goal isn't to eliminate descriptive language but to apply it fairly. A woman who takes charge isn't "bossy"—she's a leader. A woman who speaks directly isn't "aggressive"—she's assertive. A woman who advocates for her team isn't "difficult"—she's committed.

Language shapes reality, and in South African workplaces, we have the power to reshape that reality. By moving beyond limiting linguistic frameworks, we can create environments where women's leadership is valued for what it is: essential for organisational success.

The question for HR leaders isn't whether semantic bias exists—research confirms it does. The question is what we'll do about it. In a country that transformed its political landscape through conscious effort and policy intervention, surely we can transform our corporate language too.

After all, when we change how we speak about women's leadership, we change how we think about it. And when we change how we think about it, we change who gets to exercise it.

I challenge you, and your colleagues in leadership positions, to think before you speak, acknowledging the power of words and how these frame the way we view and treat the individuals in our teams.

As a 53% women-owned QSE, this Women’s Month, we're proud to announce that most of our articles feature the brilliant women of GBS- trusted experts and inspiring thought leaders in the workplace and beyond. Reach out to the right consultant for your needs via their profiles here.

Join us at the Annual Labour Law Update. This year's theme is Labour Law at the Crossroads: Adapting to Change in an Uncertain Economy and with Massive Labour Law Reform Impacting Case Law. What you'll gain: