Undecided Voters Need More Information About Harris, Gender Discrimination Could Be a Reason

As political strategists and journalists ask questions of undecided voters ahead of the upcoming presidential election, one recurring sentiment stands out: Many are unsure about Kamala Harris and need for more informationDespite her media presence and debate appearances, these voters still haven’t heard enough to make an informed decision. Their hesitations may have more to do with her gender than her policies, according to research on female leadership.

Research When evaluating female leaders, people often have a hard time seeing their potential. Evaluating someone for a role they’ve never held before, such as presidency, requires using our imaginations—but our imaginations are also where stereotypes are most likely to come into play. Because leadership has traditionally been associated with male traits, these stereotypes often cloud our judgments of women, leading us to question whether a woman has what it takes to be a leader or president. This often happens without our knowledge or awareness. As a result, some voters can’t picture Harris as president, aren’t sure why, and feel they need more information.

After conducting a focus group on undecided voters, Los Angeles Times “Most of the 20 undecided voters were not completely undecided, but nearly all said they needed more information—especially about Harris—before they made up their minds,” one respondent explained. “I don’t feel like I know enough about Harris, about her, and what she stands for.” Gender stereotypes make it harder for these voters to see Harris’ potential as president, and as a result, they need more concrete information about what she would be like as president.

One to work It was published Management Academy It shows how a woman’s failure to see her potential plays out in everyday work situations. Researchers examined the evaluations of more than 29,000 management-level employees at a large retailer. Women at the retailer were less likely to be promoted because, despite receiving higher performance ratings than men, they were seen as having less future potential.

The performance ratings reflected the women’s work and didn’t require imagination, so bias didn’t affect them—in fact, women received higher performance ratings than men. But when raters were asked to imagine the women’s future potential, they, like undecided voters, couldn’t see it. Despite outperforming men, women received lower ratings of their potential than men.

To assess whether women really had less future potential than men, the same researchers looked at women’s performance ratings in future periods. They found that women exceeded estimates of their potential. Yet even though they exceeded previous ratings of their potential, managers rated women as having less future potential in subsequent ratings.

Somewhere else to workThe researchers found similar results. Nearly 200 participants reviewed resumes for executive roles at a fictional tech company. Half of the resumes emphasized the candidate’s past accomplishments, while the other half emphasized their potential. A similar trend emerged: male candidates received higher rankings when their potential was demonstrated. But the story was different for female candidates—they were held to much higher standards, and their leadership potential was largely ignored. Women had to demonstrate a certain level of leadership ability before they were considered positively.

Other research women are consistently held to higher standards than men, having to repeatedly prove their abilities, especially in roles traditionally dominated by men. This dynamic is particularly important in Kamala Harris’ case, as there has been no female president in U.S. history. This phenomenon, known as the “repeat bias,” reflects the extent to which women must provide evidence of their leadership abilities.

As a woman of color, Harris faces additional obstacles. One to workBlack women were the group most likely to face the ‘prove yourself again’ bias, with three-quarters of black women surveyed admitting they have to prove themselves over and over again in the workplace.

Of course, some of the demand for more insight into Harris may be due to her relatively recent entry into the presidential race, which has voters looking for clarity about her policies. But it’s also likely that, given the polling evidence, the difficulty some voters have imagining her in the role of president is fueling their demand for more detail about her plans.

Companies can take concrete steps to combat such biases in the workplace, such as defining “potential” with clear, objective criteria. But when it comes to the presidency, the challenge is more complex. To move beyond the clichés that can cloud voters’ judgments, Harris must provide enough detail about her vision and plans to help people see her clearly in the Oval Office, leaving no room for imagination—and therefore bias. That level of transparency will be more than voters can stomach.