In 2007, two psychologists, Madeline Heilman and Tyler Okimoto, published what would become one of the most influential papers on gender bias in the workplace.
Across three experiments, they found that women who succeeded in stereotypically masculine roles were judged differently from equally successful men. Their competence wasn’t questioned; their likability was. Participants were more likely to describe the women as abrasive, hostile, and less desirable as bosses simply because they had excelled in work that defied traditional gender expectations.
Nearly two decades later, as we adapt to the age of AI, those findings have taken on new relevance. Employers are placing an increasing premium on distinctly human capabilities, but much of the behavior companies celebrate as hallmarks of creativity are strikingly similar to the traits women have historically been penalized for displaying.
Taken together, this raises an uncomfortable possibility: As employers increasingly prize creativity, might women face higher barriers to demonstrating precisely the qualities organizations now claim to value most? And if companies fail to recognize that creative risk-taking carries different social costs for different employees, might they reinforce gender inequalities while overlooking some of their best ideas?
Creativity’s New Premium
There’s already plenty of evidence that AI is reshaping organizational structures and changing the requirements for employee success.
Last year, the World Economic Forum, based on a survey of more than 1,000 employers across more than 50 countries, found that creative thinking was expected to be among the most in-demand core skills between 2025 and 2030. PwC has similarly found that as AI takes over more routine tasks, employers are placing a growing premium on distinctly human capabilities such as creativity, judgment, and innovation.
But succeeding as a creative employee isn’t simply a matter of having good ideas. It’s also about feeling safe enough to voice unconventional ones.
Organizational psychologists have long found that many of the qualities associated with creativity—such as risk-taking, assertiveness, and independence—overlap with traits traditionally coded as masculine. This contributes to a double bind: Conform to gender norms and risk being overlooked as insufficiently innovative, or violate them and risk being perceived as abrasive, unlikable, or difficult.
“Women possess just as much capacity for innovation as men,” says Emily DeJeu, an assistant teaching professor of business management communication at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. “But the social costs and risks are higher to express that because you’re not guaranteed that it’s going to be well received.”
The Psychological Safety Factor
To understand why those social costs matter, it’s important to understand the concept of psychological safety.
Although the concept has its roots in the work of psychologist Carl Rogers, it was Amy Edmondson, professor of leadership at Harvard Business School, who popularized it in the workplace. It describes an environment in which people feel able to ask questions, admit mistakes, and offer ideas without fear of embarrassment, punishment, or damage to their reputation.
“Creativity, although primarily a cognitive activity, is equally a social activity,” explains Michael Genovese, a physician and attorney. “While the brain generates an idea, the decision to express that idea—and how—is largely dependent upon the perception of risk.”
That risk is inherent to creativity. “It requires people having permission to be wrong,” says Nataly Kelly, chief marketing officer of Zappi, a consumer insights platform. “People don’t produce their best ideas when they’re worried about looking foolish or being penalized for taking risks.”
The most original ideas, by definition, challenge accepted ways of thinking and invite criticism. “Without psychological safety, workers will stick to conservative ideas to minimize blowback,” says Daniel Zhao, chief economist at Glassdoor.
The problem, however, is that psychological safety isn’t experienced equally.
Research suggests that women often face greater social penalties for speaking up, challenging established thinking, or displaying the assertiveness that creative work frequently requires. If previous experiences have taught someone that expressing an unconventional idea risks being labeled “emotional,” “aggressive,” or “difficult,” Genovese argues, “this is not a lack of creativity; it is an adaptive response to the existing environment.”
Creating more innovative workplaces, therefore, isn’t simply about encouraging employees to think differently. As Genovese puts it: “Creating psychological safety doesn’t require making everyone feel comfortable; it requires minimizing the costs associated with taking intellectual risks.”
Rethinking Creativity at Work
Changing those dynamics won’t be easy. The stereotypes that shape how creative behavior is perceived are deeply embedded, DeJeu says, and unlikely to disappear overnight.
There are, however, practical steps organizations can take. Leaders can normalize experimentation and failure rather than rewarding only polished successes.
Organizations can also create structures that make creative participation an expectation rather than an exception. Zhao points to one company that asked every employee to submit an idea for saving the company money, offering bonuses for suggestions that were implemented. “This turned out to be a good, low-pressure way to solicit ideas from across the entire organization,” he says.
Kelly argues that company-wide initiatives can also broaden the playing field and counteract bias. “If ideas only come from the most senior person in the room, or the same individuals are always expected to be the creative ones, you create an environment where bias can creep in and a self-fulfilling prophecy where others stop seeing themselves as creative contributors,” she says. “The opportunity cost is enormous because you’re not fully leveraging your people and, as a result, you’re missing opportunities that could drive innovation and growth.”
Those interventions matter because expectations themselves can shape performance. In social psychology, the so-called expectations states theory suggests that assumptions about people’s abilities influence how they perform. While research is mixed on whether men or women are more negatively affected by expectations around creativity, Rachel Skaggs, a professor of arts management at the Ohio State University, says one thing is clear: “Workers who are subject to low expectations are likely to perform worse.”
DeJeu says women may also benefit from thinking strategically about how they frame unconventional ideas. Because women have historically been associated with traits such as collaboration, empathy, and relationship-building, presenting a proposal in terms of collective benefit rather than disruption alone may help reduce resistance.
Ultimately, though, the responsibility shouldn’t fall solely on women to navigate biased expectations. Simply asking employees to be more innovative isn’t enough if organizations fail to examine whose ideas are consistently heard, supported, and rewarded, Genovese argues.
Companies that succeed in the AI era won’t necessarily be those with the most creative employees. They’ll be the ones that create environments where creativity doesn’t come at a higher social cost for some workers than for others.
Otherwise, some of the best ideas will never be heard.