As political strategists and journalists query undecided voters ahead of the upcoming presidential election, a recurring sentiment stands out: many remain unsure about Kamala Harris, citing a need for more information. Despite her media presence and debate appearances, these voters still haven’t heard enough to make an informed decision. According to research on female leadership, their hesitation could be more about her gender than her policies.
Research reveals that when assessing female leaders, people often struggle to see women’s potential. Evaluating someone for a role they’ve never held before, like the presidency, requires using our imagination—but our imagination is also where stereotypes are most likely to kick in. Since leadership is traditionally associated with male traits, these stereotypes often cloud our judgment of women, causing us to question whether a woman has what it takes to be a leader or a president. This typically happens without our knowledge or awareness. As a result, some voters can’t picture Harris as president, aren’t sure why, and think they need more information.
After conducting a focus group on undecided voters, the Los Angeles Times concluded, “Most of the 20 swing voters weren’t entirely undecided, but almost all said they needed more information—especially about Harris—before they make up their minds.” One of the participants explained, “With Harris, I just don’t feel as if I know enough about her… and what she stands for.” Gender stereotypes make it difficult for these voters to see Harris’ potential to be president, and, as a result, they require more concrete information of what she’ll be like as president.
One study published in the Academy of Management illustrates how this inability to see a woman’s potential plays out in everyday work situations. The researchers examined the reviews of over 29,000 management-track employees at a large retailer. Women at the retailer were less likely to be promoted because although they received higher performance ratings than men, they were seen as having less future potential than men.
The performance ratings reflected the women’s work and did not require imagination, so bias did not impact these—indeed, women received higher performance ratings than men. But when evaluators were asked to imagine the women’s future potential, much like the undecided voters, they couldn’t see it. Despite performing better than men, women received lower ratings on their potential than men.
To assess whether women truly had less future potential than men, the same researchers looked at the women’s performance ratings in future periods. They found that women outperformed forecasts of their potential. Yet, even though they outperformed prior ratings of their potential, managers still rated the women as having lower future potential in subsequent ratings.
In another study, researchers found similar results. Nearly 200 participants reviewed résumés for a director role at a fictional tech company. Half the résumés emphasized the candidate’s past achievements, while the other half highlighted their potential. A similar trend emerged: male candidates received high rankings when their potential was showcased. But for female candidates, the story was different—they were held to far higher standards, and their leadership potential was largely dismissed. Women had to have already demonstrated their ability to lead at a particular level before they were evaluated positively.
Other research consistently shows that women are held to higher standards than men, often needing to prove their abilities time and again—especially in roles traditionally dominated by men. With no female president in U.S. history, this dynamic is particularly relevant in Kamala Harris’s case. This phenomenon, known as the “prove-it-again bias,” reflects how much evidence women must provide of their leadership skills.
As a woman of color, Harris faces additional obstacles. In one study, Black women were the most likely to report experiencing prove-it-again bias, with three-quarters of Black women surveyed agreeing they had to prove themselves over and over again at work.
Certainly, part of the demand for more insight into Harris may stem from her relatively recent entry into the presidential race, leaving voters seeking clarity on her policies. However, given the research evidence, it’s also likely that the difficulty some voters have in envisioning her in the role of president is fueling the calls for further details about her plans.
Companies can take concrete steps to help combat this type of bias in the workplace—like defining “potential” with clear, objective criteria. But the challenge is more complex when it comes to the presidency. To move past the stereotypes that might cloud voters’ judgment, Harris would need to offer enough detail about her vision and plans to help people clearly see her in the Oval Office, leaving no room for imagination—and thus, bias—to take hold. That level of transparency would likely be too much for voters to absorb.