I came across this story in Fortune, in their Future of Work section that was talking about AI generating identical resumes for a man and a woman.
Two identical CVs were created using AI. They contained the same qualifications, the same wording, and were distributed to 1,000 reviewers. The only difference was the name at the top.
- James received a 97% approval rating.
- Emily received 76%.
Despite reading the exact same content, reviewers were significantly more likely to question Emily's competence, effort, and trustworthiness. One reviewer described James using AI as simply "getting a little help," while Emily's use of AI was treated as evidence that she lacked capability.
Same output. Different assumptions. Different judgment.
The study, conducted by former Meta strategist Zehra Chatoo and reported by Fortune, exposed something many women already knew intuitively: the social penalty for using AI is not evenly distributed.
And one of the most uncomfortable findings was that younger generations were not exempt from the bias. Gen Z men were reportedly 3.5 times more likely to label Emily’s CV as weak.
That matters because we keep hearing that AI will be the great equalizer. That younger generations will naturally evolve past these patterns.
The data suggests otherwise.
What I think is important here is recognizing that AI did not create this problem. It surfaced it.
The conversation that quickly turns toward “fixing bias,” ignores the part of the problem which is assuming human bias can ever be completely eliminated.
Bias has existed for generations.
People only change when they are willing to examine themselves honestly, and most people are not nearly as objective about themselves as they believe they are. That work is slow. Sometimes lifelong.
So while I absolutely agree that biased judgment should be challenged directly, I also think we need to stop pretending that waiting for society to evolve is a strategy.
Women cannot afford to sit on the sidelines of AI adoption while hoping culture catches up later.
What gives me more hope is this:
We are still early enough in AI that we are, in many ways, its parents.
We are training these systems. We are reinforcing patterns. We are deciding what gets rewarded, promoted, trusted, and amplified. AI learned bias from human history, human behavior, and human data. It inherited our assumptions at scale.
Which means we also have an opportunity to interrupt those assumptions.
That responsibility belongs to all of us, especially the people building systems, deploying them inside organizations, managing teams, and teaching others how to use them responsibly.
At the same time, I do not believe the answer is for women to become quieter about using AI because some people may judge them differently for it.
The answer is deeper AI fluency, stronger systems thinking, and visible competence built through skill rather than performative confidence.
Knowledge changes posture. Competence changes presence. And visible competence eventually changes culture.
The women I see thriving with AI are not using it as a shortcut. They are using it as leverage.
There is a massive difference between asking AI to think for you and using AI to expand your capacity to execute, analyze, synthesize, communicate, and build.
That distinction matters.
The strongest AI practitioners I know are often the ones doing the deepest human thinking behind the scenes. They are building workflows, validating outputs, pressure-testing assumptions, refining systems, and applying judgment.
AI may accelerate execution, but judgment still belongs to the human layer.
That is why I loved the original call to action encouraging women in leadership to use AI openly, document workflows, and make their usage visible.
Visibility matters. Not because visibility magically removes bias, but because hidden usage reinforces shame while visible usage normalizes competence. And I would add something else that I think is equally important:
Pre-leadership women should embrace AI too.
Not only executives. Not only founders. Not only people who already have positional authority.
Early-career women, coordinators, assistants, specialists, managers, and emerging leaders should be developing AI fluency now, while these systems are still evolving.
Because the uncomfortable reality is this: There is no guarantee the bias disappears.
There is no guarantee the workplace suddenly becomes fair because we published another study proving unfairness exists. So the strategy cannot depend entirely on cultural enlightenment arriving on schedule.
The strategy has to include ownership.
- Ownership of growth.
- Ownership of capability.
- Ownership of learning.
- Ownership of adapting early while the infrastructure of work itself is changing underneath us.
Yes, it stings that women may have to work harder to prove the same competence. That frustration is real. But refusing to build AI literacy because the room judges women differently only creates another long-term disadvantage layered on top of the existing one.
And this is where I think the AI conversation often becomes too shallow.
People talk about prompts. Tools. Productivity hacks. Speed.
Meanwhile, the real shift is about power.
Who knows how systems work. Who understands leverage. Who can direct intelligent systems effectively. Who becomes more capable under pressure instead of more overwhelmed.
That is the real divide emerging right now.
AI fluency is rapidly becoming a form of professional literacy. And historically, literacy gaps have never favored the people who opted out early.
So yes, call out the bias. Absolutely.
But also build anyway.
Learn anyway.
Use the tools anyway.
Not because the system is fair. Because your future capacity matters too much to surrender to the unfairness of the present.
The future of AI adoption will not be shaped only by the people building the models.
It will be shaped by the people willing to teach others how to use them well, ethically, strategically, and confidently.
That is why next week I’ll be working with a group of pre-leadership and leadership women, helping them build practical AI fluency, stronger systems thinking, and the confidence to use these tools visibly and intelligently inside their organizations.
Not because AI removes bias overnight. It doesn’t.
But because competence creates leverage. And leverage changes trajectories.
The goal is not to turn women into passive users of AI tools.
The goal is to help them become informed operators, strategic thinkers, better communicators, and stronger decision-makers in a world increasingly shaped by intelligent systems.
The bias may still exist in some rooms. But silence and avoidance will not shrink it.
Education might.
And visible, capable women using AI openly absolutely will.
If your organization, leadership team, association, or event is trying to move beyond surface-level AI conversations and into real-world adoption, workflow integration, and strategic AI literacy, this is the work I do through workshops, leadership sessions, and keynote programs focused on AI as a human capacity expander.
Because the companies that thrive in this next era will not necessarily be the ones with the most tools.
They will be the ones with the most AI-fluent people.
