Katty Kay says confidence is a skill companies should teach
Katty Kay argues in Fortune that confidence can be learned and that workplaces lose talent when they reward only those who already show it.
By Hana Yoshida · Markets Reporter
3 min read
Katty Kay says confidence is a skill, not a personality trait, and argues that companies should teach it rather than reward only employees who already appear self-assured. In a Fortune commentary, Kay frames the issue as a workplace performance problem, especially as women’s advancement into senior roles has stalled or slipped in some areas.
Kay cites Ohio State University psychology professor Dr. Richard Petty’s definition of confidence as the force that converts thinking into action. Her point is that confidence is built through repeated experience: taking risks, making mistakes, facing difficult tasks and continuing after setbacks.
That definition matters for employers, Kay argues, because ideas do not help an organization unless people feel able to act on them. She says workplaces often mistake visible poise for capability and then promote people who already look confident, instead of building systems that help more employees develop that ability.
What does Katty Kay say about confidence at work?
Kay’s central argument is that confidence can be practiced and learned. She describes it as a business skill that grows when people try difficult things and learn that they can recover from errors or uncertainty.
She also separates confidence from fearlessness. Kay writes that strong leaders still experience doubt and fear, but they act anyway rather than letting those feelings decide the outcome.
As an example, Kay points to Peloton instructor Ally Love, who told her on a podcast that she addresses fear by going first. Kay uses the example to show that action can come before certainty.
Why does Kay link confidence to women’s advancement?
Kay argues that the confidence gap at work should be treated as a business failure, not only a women’s issue. She says women are being held back by workplace structures that were largely built by and for men, and by expectations that can require women to prove full mastery before being considered for bigger roles.
Kay cites a recent report in The Economist, which referred to an S&P Global study, on women’s representation in corporate leadership. According to that report, women’s share of executive roles at listed U.S. companies fell in 2023 for the first time after nearly two decades of growth.
The Economist also reported that women received fewer new board seats at S&P 500 companies and that the share of female partners and managing directors at Goldman Sachs declined, according to Kay’s summary.
Kay connects those trends to changes after COVID and to the retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion programs. She argues that the result is not only damaging for women, but costly for companies that fail to keep and promote talented workers.
What evidence does Kay cite for the business case?
Kay says more than a dozen global studies have found that companies with more women in leadership outperform competitors. She names research or findings from the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, Goldman Sachs and Pepperdine University.
Her conclusion is that employers should stop treating confidence as a fixed trait that some workers have and others lack. In Kay’s view, companies that teach confidence and create room for employees to act through uncertainty are more likely to retain and advance female talent.
This story draws on original reporting from Fortune.