In the business world, leading involves both achieving results and the way in which they are built. These criteria are essential for any leadership, without distinction. However, in organizational practice, the interpretation of these same criteria is not always neutral. In the case of women, the “how” can acquire a particular visibility, not because of its nature, but because of the frameworks from which it is observed. From organizational analysis and work behavior studies, this has been described as the double examination of female leadership: a dynamic where performance and perception coexist, but not always under equivalent readings.
In the Dominican Republic, this phenomenon takes on relevant nuances. Women have achieved significant educational levels and a growing participation in the labor market, with an important presence in micro, small and medium-sized businesses. However, their representation decreases in the areas of greatest decision-making. This reality does not respond to a lack of preparation, but rather to structural conditions that influence their growth trajectories.
This phenomenon is linked to gender role biases and differentiated evaluation standards that influence—often unconsciously—how the exercise of leadership is interpreted. If you lead firmly, they call it toughness; If you lead with empathy, they turn it into weakness. This is not a real contradiction, but rather a conditioned reading that distorts the value of leadership.
Added to this is an additional requirement: the need to explain success. While professional achievement is usually valued by its results, in the case of women there is usually a broader scrutiny that seeks to understand the conditions behind that achievement. Questions then arise that are rarely formulated in the same way in other cases: who recommended her? Who does she know? Who really encouraged her? Is she really prepared for that role? This type of questioning, often subtle, can affect the perception of legitimacy and add a silent burden to the exercise of leadership.
Beyond the concepts, there is a human dimension that should not be lost: the way we choose to exercise leadership every day. Leading, in these contexts, is not only responding to external expectations, but also building one’s own voice with intention.
Overcoming this double test is not only a structural challenge; It is also an opportunity to strengthen the way in which, among women, more solid and strategic professional relationships are built. In environments where leadership is limited and highly competitive, it is possible to choose a different logic: one that prioritizes collaboration over distance and accompaniment over silent competition.
Promoting sorority, in this context, does not imply uniformity, but awareness. It is recognizing the value of one’s own merit and also that of others, without unnecessary comparisons. It is understanding that the path does not have to be traveled alone and that the progress of one can open possibilities for many more. It is also about sharing information, providing support in the spaces where decisions are made and building relationships based on genuine trust.
There is a subtle, but deeply strategic dimension: learning to hold ourselves in the other’s gaze without immediate judgment. Because, in the end, transforming culture is not only an institutional task, it is also a shared responsibility. And in that process, the way women relate to each other can become one of the most powerful levers in redefining leadership.
