The Undermining Trap: How Women Can Spot It and Stop It

Mar 1816 min read

"Real power isn’t given—it’s taken. And the greatest trick of the system is making you believe that your biggest competition is the woman standing next to you. The truth? When women stand together, we don’t just break barriers—we build new worlds."

Imagine walking into a meeting, confident in your ideas. You present a well-thought-out strategy, only to have your points dismissed—until a male colleague rephrases them and suddenly, they’re seen as ground-breaking. Sound familiar?

This isn’t just frustrating; it’s ‘workplace undermining;’ a subtle but powerful force that can erode credibility, stall careers and reinforce existing power imbalances. For women—especially Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) professionals—the recent rollback of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives makes these challenges even more pronounced.

But here’s the truth, undermining isn’t inevitable. It’s a trap—but one you can recognize, navigate and dismantle.

The 5 Hidden Traps of Workplace Undermining

1. The Credibility Erosion Trap: How Workplace Bias and AI Undermine Women’s Leadership

Credibility isn’t just about competence—it’s about perception. Women, especially from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds, find their expertise and leadership systematically questioned at work. Bias—both human and algorithmic—is one of the biggest culprits.

The 2024 McKinsey Women in the Workplace report confirms that women are still being overlooked for leadership roles at higher rates than men, particularly at the first step to management. This “broken rung” effect creates a lasting career disadvantage, making it significantly harder for women to climb the corporate ladder. AI-driven hiring and performance evaluations are making this worse. These systems, trained on historical workforce data, have been found to favour men for leadership roles—reinforcing outdated patterns rather than breaking them.

Let’s not forget women’s contributions are often and systematically ignored or dismissed until repeated by a male colleague, at which point they are acknowledged and praised. Women are held to higher performance standards and must repeatedly prove themselves before gaining the same trust and opportunities as their male counterparts. Post-pandemic remote work has intensified these credibility challenges—out of sight often means out of mind, leading to fewer promotions and leadership opportunities for women.

AI’s Gender Bias in Leadership Evaluations

A 2022 MIT study found that AI-driven performance assessment tools rated women’s leadership skills 30% lower than men’s, even when they demonstrated identical decision-making abilities. The system had been trained on historical workplace data, where men dominated leadership roles, causing it to favour traditionally male-associated leadership traits. Instead of promoting fairness, AI became a barrier to women’s advancement, reinforcing outdated biases at scale.

These new insights from McKinsey and the Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) confirm that systemic barriers for women in leadership remain deeply entrenched. However, the growing influence of AI in hiring and promotions is accelerating these challenges, requiring urgent intervention.

Women must actively document their contributions, ensuring credit is properly attributed and bias is called out when identified. Organisations need to audit their AI-driven evaluations and implement bias detection mechanisms to prevent systemic discrimination. Leadership development should focus on skill-based assessments, ensuring AI tools are used to enhance fairness—not reinforce exclusion.

2. The Invisible Barrier Trap: How Women Are Being Locked Out of Leadership Opportunities

If credibility is about perception, access to leadership roles is about networks, visibility and advocacy. Traditionally, DEI programmes played a crucial role in mentorship, sponsorship and career advocacy for women and BAME employees. However, as many companies scale back DEI initiatives, these support structures are disappearing, leaving women without career champions in the workplace.

The 2024 McKinsey Women in the Workplace report reveals that fewer women are being promoted to leadership roles due to the growing influence of AI-driven decision-making and hybrid work biases. As remote and flexible work increases, AI hiring and promotion systems prioritise in-office visibility over actual performance—creating a new digital glass ceiling.

With fewer mentorship and sponsorship opportunities means this will leave women without the internal advocates needed for career advancement. Leadership roles increasingly go to men, reinforcing the homogeneity of executive teams. Decision-making happens behind closed doors, excluding women from high-impact projects that lead to promotions.

The Hybrid Work Promotion Gap

A 2023 McKinsey report found that women who work remotely are 29% less likely to be considered for promotions compared to their in-office counterparts. Many women opt for flexible work arrangements due to caregiving responsibilities, but instead of supporting career growth, companies are using in-office presence as a proxy for leadership potential—a clear bias that disadvantages women.

The Role of AI in Reinforcing Exclusion

AI-driven leadership selection tools prioritise candidates who spend more time physically in the office, using outdated productivity metrics that favour presenteeism over actual performance. As women statistically request remote and flexible work at higher rates than men, they are being systematically filtered out of leadership pipelines—not due to a lack of talent, but because AI sees them as less engaged.

If women want to push back they must actively seek mentorship and sponsorship outside of their organisations, ensuring they build strong networks regardless of their work location. Companies need to rethink how they measure leadership potential, ensuring that AI-driven promotion tools do not penalise flexible work arrangements. Leadership selection must be based on outcomes, impact and skill—not outdated notions of workplace presence.

By addressing credibility erosion, leadership exclusion and AI-driven bias, organisations and individuals can push back against invisible barriers and drive real change. The future of leadership must be built on equity, inclusion and merit—not flawed algorithms and outdated biases.

3. The Pay & Promotion Gap Trap

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing gender disparities in the workplace, particularly affecting women's pay and promotion opportunities. The shift to remote work, while offering flexibility, has also led to increased isolation for many women, reducing their visibility and access to informal networks that are crucial for career advancement. Moreover, the accelerated integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies in workplace processes has, in some cases, perpetuated existing biases, further marginalising women, especially those from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds.

Research indicates that without structured Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, pay disparities widen and promotion pathways become less transparent. For instance, a study by the Economic Policy Institute in 2023 found that women are paid roughly 22% less than men on average, with the gap persisting across various wage distributions. Additionally, the World Economic Forum's 2021 report estimated that it would take another 136 years to close the global gender gap, a timeline that has likely been affected further by the pandemic's impact.

In the post-pandemic era, many organisations have adopted AI-driven tools for recruitment and performance evaluations. While these technologies aim to enhance efficiency, they can inadvertently reinforce existing biases if not carefully designed and monitored. This technological shift can lead to women being overlooked for promotions or pay raises, as AI systems may not adequately account for the nuances of individual performance and potential.

"At the current rate of progress, it will take a century to close the gender pay gap—an unacceptable reality that keeps women financially and professionally disadvantaged. The barriers to leadership and fair pay are deeply entrenched, and without urgent intervention, future generations will inherit the same inequalities. Achieving gender equity isn’t just about closing a gap—it’s about dismantling a system that continuously undervalues women’s contributions." – The Fawcett Society

Women, spotting the signs of this trap is crucial. You may observe that pay raises and promotions seem arbitrary or disproportionately favour certain groups. Salary transparency might be discouraged, making it challenging to assess whether you're being compensated fairly. Furthermore, you might feel that your career progression is slower compared to equally qualified colleagues, a sentiment echoed by many women in the workforce. For example, a report by the Centre for American Progress highlighted that, at the current pace, women are not estimated to reach pay parity with men until 2059.

Recognising these signs and advocating for equitable practices are vital steps toward closing the gender pay and promotion gap.

4. The Leadership Ceiling Trap

*The Homog**eneous Leadership Trap*

As Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives fade, leadership teams risk becoming increasingly homogeneous, shutting out women—particularly those from BAME backgrounds—from decision-making roles. Leadership positions are often filled through informal networks rather than structured, merit-based processes, reinforcing existing power structures. The “boys' club” mentality, once kept in check by DEI initiatives, resurfaces, making it harder for women to break through.

However, this issue extends beyond the corporate world. In STEM fields and entrepreneurship, women are losing out on opportunities that shape the future of technology, business and economic leadership. The post-pandemic shift to remote and AI-driven hiring has created new forms of exclusion, further marginalising women in these sectors.

Pay attention. You may notice leadership positions being awarded based on personal affiliations rather than open, competitive selection. Women—despite their expertise—find themselves passed over for leadership opportunities without clear feedback. In the entrepreneurial world, female founders struggle to secure venture capital or business loans at fair rates, limiting their ability to scale and compete.

The STEM Leadership Gap: Fewer Women, More Barriers

The underrepresentation of women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) remains a critical issue. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2023, women make up only 28% of the STEM workforce. In fields like engineering, the number drops further, with women comprising just 15.7% of the UK’s engineering sector.

The post-COVID shift to hybrid and remote work has intensified this disparity. Without in-person mentorship and networking, women struggle to gain visibility and career progression. AI-driven recruitment and performance assessment tools—often trained on biased datasets—have further entrenched gender and racial disparities, making it harder for women to access STEM roles and leadership positions.

Women Entrepreneurs Shut Out

While women are still starting businesses at a greater rate than their male counterparts, female entrepreneurs, particularly in tech, are facing increasing difficulty in securing investment. In 2023, women-led start-ups received less than 3% (and women of colour 1%) of total venture capital (VC) funding in the United States, a figure that has remained stagnant despite years of awareness and advocacy.

Yet, the data contradicts the bias: Female-founded start-ups deliver a 35% higher return on investment than male-led firms. The issue? A lack of diversity among investors. Most VC firms are still overwhelmingly male-led, leading to “investor homophily”—the tendency to fund entrepreneurs who resemble the investor pool. Without DEI pressure, these biases remain unchecked, shutting out talented female entrepreneurs from essential growth capital.

Let’s examine the fate of Farah Kabir and Hanx

Farah Kabir, a former Goldman Sachs employee, prominent human rights advocate and development expert she co-founded Hanx with Dr. Sarah Welsh in 2017. HANX focuses on providing gynae-backed, sensitive, and innovative sexual and intimate wellness products for women

Despite her finance background, Kabir encountered sexism in the fundraising process, with investors making dismissive comments and questioning the viability of a woman-led company in the space. These barriers aren’t just inconvenient—they stunt innovation by limiting who gets funded and whose ideas shape the future.

And what about Annie Rogers and My Voice Communications

At 16 years old, Australian entrepreneur Annie Rogers developed My Voice Communications, a tech-based communication device for non-verbal individuals. She e developed the 'My Voice' device, which is designed to help non-verbal individuals communicate more effectively by projecting their voice from their chest rather than a communication device situated in front of them

Annie's work has been recognised through various awards and opportunities, highlighting her impact as a young entrepreneur as she continues to advocate for innovation; entrepreneurial skills whilst trying to expand the reach and affordability of her product

But despite early success, Rogers struggled to find role models and support systems as a young female founder. Her story highlights the lack of visibility and resources for women entering STEM-based entrepreneurship, reinforcing the need for more structured funding and mentorship pathways.

The Future of Women in STEM, & Business Looking to Break Funding Barriers

One of the most effective ways to challenge the leadership and funding barriers that women face is to demand transparency in hiring, promotions and access to opportunities. Many leadership positions are still awarded through informal networks, making it difficult for women—especially those from underrepresented backgrounds—to compete on an equal footing.

Pushing for open, structured hiring and promotion criteria ensures that decisions are based on merit rather than personal connections. Additionally, advocating for DEI audits in leadership representation can highlight disparities and drive accountability. With the increasing use of AI-driven hiring and performance evaluation tools, it’s also crucial to challenge algorithms that reinforce bias, ensuring that technology supports equity rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.

Building a strong, strategic network is just as important as qualifications and experience. Women should not only seek mentors but also sponsors—people who actively advocate for their career advancement in decision-making spaces. Accessing female-led investment networks such as AllRaise or Black Women Talk Tech can also provide essential resources and funding opportunities that may not be available through traditional channels. For those in STEM or entrepreneurship, participating in accelerator programmes specifically designed for women can offer mentorship, funding and exposure to industry leaders who are committed to diversifying these fields.

Access to capital still remains one of the biggest barriers for female entrepreneurs, particularly when venture capital and lending institutions remain male-dominated. Women must advocate for more diverse investment teams that reflect the range of founders seeking funding. Seeking out female-focused investment funds, grants and alternative financing sources can provide a critical lifeline for business growth.

Transparency is also key—documenting and sharing funding experiences can expose systemic biases and encourage industry-wide reforms. The more women talk about their struggles in accessing capital, the harder it becomes for financial institutions to ignore these disparities.

Don’t’ forget the deeply entrenched "boys' club" mentality in business and STEM fields must be challenged at every level. Women must actively call out biased hiring and funding practices, ensuring that opportunities are not concentrated in exclusive, male-dominated circles.

Advocating for gender-conscious AI policies that prevent algorithmic bias in hiring and promotions is also essential, as these tools increasingly dictate who gets hired, who advances and who gets funded. Supporting and amplifying female-led businesses and innovations—whether through investment, mentorship, or simply visibility and advocacy—creates a ripple effect, making it easier for the next generation of women to break through these barriers.

The fight for leadership and funding equity is not just about individual success—it’s about reshaping industries to ensure that women are not just participants but leaders, decision-makers and innovators in every space they enter.

5. The AI & Bias Trap: When Technology Reinforces Workplace Inequities

AI-driven hiring, performance evaluation and decision-making tools were once seen as a way to eliminate human bias, offering objective insights free from personal prejudice. But companies just don’t learn, because real-world applications have proven otherwise.

Instead of breaking down barriers, AI is often exacerbating existing inequalities,

particularly in recruitment, promotions and leadership selection. The problem lies not just in the data AI is trained on, but also in the homogeneous teams designing these systems, often composed predominantly of white men. This ‘group think’ creates blind spots that disadvantage women and people of colour, making AI a new frontier for workplace bias and discrimination.

AI recruitment tools, for example, often favour certain demographics, particularly those who resemble current leadership structures and cultures. If an AI system is trained on historical hiring data—where men were favoured for leadership roles—it will replicate and reinforce that pattern, reducing opportunities for women. In performance evaluations, algorithms may unfairly penalise employees who take maternity leave or work flexible hours. Additionally, many AI-driven decision-making processes lack transparency, making it difficult for employees to challenge unfair evaluations or hiring outcomes.

Let’s Look at the MET Police’s Facial Recognition Bias

In the UK, the Metropolitan Police's facial recognition technology was exposed for disproportionately misidentifying people of colour. A study found that the system had higher error rates when identifying Black individuals, leading to wrongful identifications and potential legal consequences. Dr. Tony Mansfield, a principal research scientist at the National Physical Laboratory, confirmed that the AI model exhibited bias against Black men and women, particularly when operated under certain thresholds.

The root of the issue?

The design team lacked diversity and those who built the system failed to consider the racial disparities in AI recognition. Without inclusive perspectives during the algorithmic development phase, the system was trained to perform optimally for white faces, reinforcing systemic discrimination under the guise of technological objectivity.

The Same Bias Exists in Recruitment and Promotions

The same flawed AI logic used in facial recognition is also influencing hiring, promotions and career progression. A well-known example is Amazon’s AI hiring tool, which was designed to automate recruitment decisions. However, the AI had been trained on ten years of historical hiring data, which was overwhelmingly male-dominated. As a result, the system devalued resumes that contained the word “women’s”, such as “women’s chess club captain,” and disproportionately favoured male candidates. Amazon ultimately shut down the programme, but this case exposed a wider issue—AI reflects the biases of those who build it.

A study by the AI Now Institute at New York University confirmed that the AI industry is overwhelmingly male-dominated, leading to narrow perspectives in algorithm development. Without diverse teams designing AI systems, the technology is not neutral—it simply replicates past discrimination at a faster, more scalable rate.

Venture Capital & Business Funding Bias

These biases don’t just impact hiring—they extend to women entrepreneurs seeking investment. In 2023, women-led start-ups received less than 3% of total venture capital (VC) funding in the U.S. despite studies showing that female-founded firms generate 35% higher returns on investment than male-led ones.

One major reason? AI-powered investment models are also trained on past funding data, which has historically favoured male entrepreneurs. If AI-driven decision-making systems in banks and VC firms use biased datasets, they will continue to reject women’s business applications at higher rates or offer them less favourable loan terms.

How to Break the AI Bias Trap

The challenge with AI is that it’s often seen as objective, making it harder to push back against biased decisions. However, recognising the hidden biases in AI-driven processes is the first step toward demanding more equitable systems.

Companies must implement transparency measures that allow employees to understand how AI is influencing hiring, promotions and performance reviews. Employees should advocate for independent audits of AI systems to ensure they do not reinforce discriminatory practices. Most importantly, the teams building AI need to be diverse—a system designed only by white men will naturally reflect their worldview and blind spots.

Governments, businesses and advocacy groups must push for AI regulations that require fairness, accountability and bias mitigation. AI is shaping the future of work and if unchecked, it will not dismantle barriers—it will fortify them under a digital facade.

The Future of AI & Workplace Equity

The integration of AI into hiring, leadership selection and investment decisions is rapidly increasing. But without intentional oversight, AI will amplify existing biases rather than eliminate them. The fact that policing, hiring and funding decisions are already being skewed by algorithmic bias proves that AI is not neutral—it reflects the values and biases of those who create it.

Women and marginalised groups must continue pushing for transparency, accountability and representation in the design and regulation of AI. Otherwise, the very technology that promised to create a fairer future will instead lock in the inequities of the past.

The Bottom Line Is You Are Not Powerless

Undermining is designed to make you doubt your worth. Don’t let it. It thrives on silence, uncertainty and the hope that you won’t push back. But here’s the truth: The only way undermining succeeds is if you internalise it. The moment you recognise it for what it is—a tactic, not a reflection of your abilities—you regain control.

Women—especially those from marginalised backgrounds—have always had to fight for recognition, opportunities and leadership. The removal of DEI programmes may shift the landscape, making it feel like the rules are constantly changing. But if history has shown us anything, it’s that progress isn’t gifted; it’s claimed. This moment is not about retreating—it’s about recalibrating and finding new ways to thrive.

Your career is not dictated solely by the barriers others place in front of you; it’s shaped by how you navigate, challenge and ultimately dismantle them. That means advocating for yourself, forging alliances and ensuring that your voice is heard. It means refusing to shrink when overlooked, speaking up when you’re spoken over and making sure your contributions are recognised.

The Divide-and-Conquer Trap: How Undermining Tactics Turn Women of Colour Against Each Other

In examining workplace dynamics among marginalised women of colour, particularly between Latin American and African American women, it's crucial to understand how systemic biases can manifest in subtle, divisive ways. A McKinsey report highlights that women of colour continue to face significant bias and discrimination at work, experiencing similar types of microaggressions at similar relative frequencies as they were two years prior.

The McKinsey report titled "Race in the Workplace: The Black Experience in the US Private Sector" delves into the unique challenges faced by Black employees within the private sector. While this report provides an in-depth analysis of the Black experience, it does not specifically compare the experiences of Latin American women to African American women.

However, the broader "Women in the Workplace" reports by McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.Org offer insights into the challenges faced by women of various racial and ethnic backgrounds in professional settings. These reports highlight that women of colour, including Black and Latina women, often encounter distinct biases and barriers in the workplace.

It's important to note that the experiences of discrimination and bias can vary widely among different groups, influenced by factors such as industry, region and organisational culture. While some studies indicate that Black women face significant challenges, other research suggests that Latina women also encounter unique forms of discrimination and underrepresentation, particularly in leadership roles.

For instance, an article from PopSugar emphasises the critical need for more Latinas in C-suite leadership roles within corporate America, noting that only 1% of these positions are currently held by Latinas. This underrepresentation underscores the systemic barriers that Latina women face in climbing the corporate ladder.

While specific comparative analyses between Latin American and African American women's experiences in the workplace may be limited, existing research consistently highlights the pervasive challenges that women of colour face due to systemic biases and discrimination.

These microaggressions and biases can create an environment where marginalised groups are pitted against each other, intentionally or unintentionally. Such tactics divert attention from systemic issues and place undue focus on intergroup tensions. This strategy not only perpetuates existing inequalities but also weakens solidarity among marginalised communities, making it more challenging to address the root causes of discrimination.

Recognising these undermining tactics is the first step toward fostering unity and resilience among women of colour. By acknowledging the systemic nature of these biases, marginalised groups can work collaboratively to dismantle oppressive structures, rather than being divided by them. This collective approach empowers individuals to challenge discriminatory practices and advocate for inclusive policies that benefit all marginalised communities.

In essence, while undermining tactics aim to sow discord among marginalised women of colour, awareness and solidarity can transform these challenges into opportunities for collective empowerment and systemic change.

So what next?

Yes, some doors may close—but others will open. And some, you will have to push open yourself. That’s why continuous learning, networking and strategic positioning are more important than ever. Find the spaces that amplify your strengths, the mentors who advocate for you and the organisations that value what you bring to the table.

Most importantly, remember that every time a woman stands her ground, she’s not just fighting for herself—she’s creating a path for others to walk through. The work you do today has a ripple effect. Keep moving forward, keep challenging the system and keep proving that undermining will never define your success.

Your voice matters. Your work matters. Your leadership matters.

Undermining is designed to make you doubt your worth. Don’t let it!

Remember, it thrives on silence, uncertainty and the hope that you won’t push back. But here’s the truth: The only way undermining succeeds is if you internalise it. The moment you recognise it for what it is—a tactic, not a reflection of your abilities—you regain control.

Women—especially those from ostracised backgrounds—have always had to fight for recognition, opportunities and leadership. The removal of DEI programmes may shift the landscape, making it feel like the rules are constantly changing. But if history has shown us anything, it’s that progress isn’t gifted; it’s claimed. This moment is not about retreating—it’s about recalibrating and finding new ways to thrive.