Attribution Bias in Tech Leadership: When Expertise Isn’t Enough

And how senior women in tech can take back control

You’re leading a major technical transformation. You’ve aligned architecture decisions, delivered measurable impact, and guided your team through complexity. Yet when strategic decisions are reviewed, your role is subtly downplayed or your technical contribution is reframed as “great stakeholder management.”

Sound familiar?

For many senior women in tech and data, attribution bias still shadows success. It’s not just frustrating it’s career-defining. When achievements are under-recognised and accountability is unevenly distributed, the effect compounds over time: slower progression, smaller spheres of influence, and an invisible ceiling that isn’t about ability at all.

Attribution bias isn’t a reflection of your competence, it’s a reflection of the system.

But you’re not powerless against it. And while one woman can’t undo centuries of systemic bias alone, she can learn to recognise it, protect her energy, and take back control of her narrative. Call it where awareness meets agency.

What attribution bias looks like at senior levels

Attribution bias is the tendency to explain outcomes based on stereotypes rather than facts.

 In leadership, it shows up less as overt discrimination and more as subtle narrative distortion where men are seen as strategic and visionary, and women as dependable or “good with people.”

LeanIn.org defines it this way: “We tend to give women less credit for accomplishments and blame them more for mistakes.”

In senior technical roles, that imbalance plays out in boardrooms, performance reviews, and promotion panels precisely where career progression decisions are made.

The evidence behind the experience

• Credit gaps: A major study of U.S. research teams found women were 13% less likely to be credited as authors on papers and 58% less likely to be named on patents even when contributing equally. In tech, this mirrors how senior women drive architectural strategy, lead innovation, or stabilise delivery, yet recognition often migrates upwards or sideways.

• Idea erasure: The Matilda Effect describes how women’s contributions are overlooked or reattributed. In leadership, this looks like your proposal gaining traction only after a peer or exec restates it. Over time, that diminishes your perceived authority.

• Interruptions and framing: Men interrupt women 33% more often than they interrupt other men. In leadership meetings, interruptions aren’t just rudeness, they shift the frame of authority, subtly positioning women as less decisive.

• Blame bias: Women’s errors are attributed to individual failings (“she wasn’t assertive enough”), while men’s are seen as circumstantial (“the timing wasn’t right”). The result? Women are promoted on proven performance, men on potential.

• Soft-skill stereotyping: Even at executive level, women’s strengths are often described as “bringing teams together” or “ensuring stability.” While, praise it's also pigeonholes. And what sounds complimentary can quietly limit access to the most strategic, career-advancing work.

The cumulative effect results in slower trajectory into senior technical and C-suite roles. Visibility fades, strategic influence narrows, and confidence can quietly erode, even for high-performing leaders.

Why it persists

Attribution bias persists because organisational storytelling still leans masculine.

 Leadership language — decisive, bold, visionary — is historically coded male. Women’s leadership is often described as “collaborative” or “nurturing,” attributes that organisations value but rarely reward at the same level.

Cognitively, it’s rooted in three biases:

1. The competence–likeability trade-off: The more confident a woman appears, the less likeable she’s perceived to be.

2. Confirmation bias: Colleagues notice data that confirms existing stereotypes — men as technical experts, women as communicators.

3. Attribution error: Success by a woman is chalked up to luck or teamwork; failure to individual shortcomings.

These distortions shape how performance and leadership potential are perceived — and therefore, who progresses.

The cost for leaders and for organisations

At this level, bias doesn’t just affect individuals, it affects strategy.

When technical authority is misattributed or undervalued, decision quality drops, innovation slows, and diverse voices disengage.

• McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace study shows women are still leaving tech leadership at twice the rate of men.

• Companies with more women in leadership roles outperform peers by up to 25% on profitability, yet women remain underrepresented in engineering and data leadership.

• Diverse teams make better decisions 87% of the time but only if every voice is recognised as authoritative.

Every time a senior woman’s influence is diluted, the organisation loses intellectual and cultural capital.

Taking back control: leadership coaching interventions that work

You can’t control the system but you can control the story told about your leadership.

This isn’t about working harder or “fixing” yourself; it’s about reclaiming authorship of your narrative and operating with strategic intent in a biased environment.

These tools are drawn from coaching work with senior technical leaders. They are practical, immediate, and designed to strengthen authority without sacrificing authenticity.

Inner work - reclaiming strategic presence

Name the Bias, Don’t Internalise It

When credit slips away or your authority is questioned, remind yourself: “This isn’t a reflection of my capability, it’s bias showing up.” That clarity prevents emotional exhaustion and allows you to respond from composure, not defence.

Audit your evidence

Keep a live record of achievements, major deliverables, strategic wins, and mentoring impact. Frame them in business outcomes, not tasks: “Delivered £X in savings,” “Reduced incident rates by 30%.” Evidence converts contribution into career currency.

Emotional regulation: the Ground-and-Grow technique

When bias hits mid-meeting, use this 30-second reset:

• Ground: Both feet on the floor, exhale slowly.

• Name it: “That was bias, not me.”

• Grow: Ask, “What outcome matters most right now?”

This keeps your nervous system online and your leadership presence intact.

Reframe feedback through strategic lenses

Translate vague or gendered feedback (“be less direct”) into something actionable (“adjust stakeholder messaging for exec tone”). This turns bias into data and prevents it from becoming self-doubt.

Outer work - reasserting authority and visibility

Reclaim the Frame

If your idea resurfaces under another name, re-anchor it: “Yes, that builds on the framework I proposed earlier. Let’s explore how to extend it.” It’s firm, not defensive and keeps ownership visible.

Create Credit Coalitions

Form reciprocal visibility loops with peers and allies. “I’d like to highlight the strategic approach Maya led on this release.” When senior leaders model this behaviour, it sets a new cultural standard.

Influence through documentation

Send concise written summaries after key meetings: what was discussed, what was decided, and your team’s role. Use AI summaries but check the output first! Paper trails establish attribution.

Curate your visibility

Be intentional about where your leadership shows up: industry panels, architecture councils, cross-functional steering groups. Visibility compounds authority and opens pathways to progression beyond your current remit.

Redefine success metrics

Shift the narrative from delivery to strategic enablement: “I build the conditions for innovation.” It reframes leadership from execution to influence, the language of senior progression.

Rewriting the story

In coaching, I see the same three patterns among senior women facing attribution bias:

1. Emotional overwhelm - feeling the constant need to prove competence.

2. Apologetic communication - softening impact to stay likeable.

3. Perceived aggression - being labelled difficult when direct.

The turning point comes when they reconnect with their achievements and start writing their own story, not the one filtered through others’ perceptions.

Taking back control isn’t rebellion, it’s authorship. It’s the moment you stop editing yourself to fit a biased frame and instead define leadership on your terms.

From awareness to influence

Attribution bias might be systemic, but leadership presence is personal power. When senior women in tech and data learn to name bias, manage emotion, and make credit visible, they change the narrative and accelerate their own career progression in the process.

If this resonates, explore my career coaching programmes, designed for senior women in tech and data to rewrite their stories, reclaim credit, and lead with strategic confidence.

I also offer a small number of free Coaching Experience Calls each month. Genuine 45-minute sessions designed to help you slow down, think clearly, and uncover what’s next for your career or leadership.

No pressure. No sales pitch. Just space to reflect, refocus, and rediscover direction.

Book your coaching experience call