Perceptions of female business owners in AI

The dominant story about women and AI is wrong. And I've got the receipts ;) Last week at HumanX, Chief CEO Alison Moore took the keynote stage with new research we built together at The Harris Poll — surveying 1,000+ senior women leaders on how they're actually navigating AI inside their organizations, also featured in Fast Company. The myth: women are hesitant, sitting on the sidelines while everyone else races to deploy AI. The findings, in one sentence: ➡️ Women are leading, building, and scaling AI while protecting the human infrastructure underneath it. ⬅️ 80% of senior women leaders are already playing active strategic roles in their org's AI efforts. Not supportive of. Not open to. Actively shaping. And 71% of women leaders are the FIRST in their organization to spot emerging AI risks. That's not caution. That's FORESIGHT. 👀 And it's exactly what everyone misses about how these leaders operate. They're not just hitting the gas. ⚖️ They're the leaders thinking about how to ship AI fast AND how to keep the humans, the institutional knowledge, the leadership pipeline, and the critical thinking intact while we do it. And they're making time for the question missing in many C-suite conversations: 🌍 What kind of world are we actually building here? That's the question worth considering, because here's what's already happening: 📉 69% say their organization has already reduced entry-level jobs to some degree. The bottom rung is being sawed off in real time. And 81% of women leaders agree: "We won't have capable managers in the future if we don't invest in developing humans now." It's not a hot take. It's basic arithmetic. This is why 85% of women leaders believe companies that invest in both AI and people will outperform those focused on technology alone. The bottom line: Make sure you have women at your leadership tables. Not as a nice-to-have. Because they're bringing a fundamentally different orientation to this moment, one that is action-forward AND endurance-built. They're the ones asking what we stand to break if we move too fast. That's the difference between AI being the gamechanger we've all been promised vs. AI being the box we wish we never opened. Read the full analysis on The Next Big Think 👇 Huge thanks to Alison Moore, Sabrina Caluori, Ravi Sunnak and the entire Chief team for partnering on this, and to Danielle Sumerlin for leading it with me. 🚀

I asked Claude to price my consulting work. Then I changed one word: woman to man. The difference was so shocking, I had to write this post immediately. For 𝘮𝘦, it suggested: $15,000–$25,000/month or $40,000–$60,000 for a 2–3 month engagement. Then I asked the same question, but as a 𝘮𝘢𝘯. It suggested: $35,000–$50,000/month or $100,000–$150,000 for the same 2–3 month scope. 𝐏𝐥𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲 (1–2%), 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 (10–15%), 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐭. Same expertise. Same scope. Same project. Only one variable changed: 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫. This isn’t about “Claude being wrong.” It’s about how 𝐀𝐈 𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬, and quietly amplifies them in business decisions around pricing, authority, and value. This makes me think about how many wealth-generating and visibility opportunities women miss out on (equity, board seats!!) because they aren’t even suggested to us - by employers, by AI, or by the client. And honestly…it makes me angry…. #AI #genderbias #Claude #Anthropic

There's a lot of discussion about the gender gap in AI adoption. But not many seem to be asking why it exists - and what it means. I talked about this with Nina Benoit on her The AI Sustainability Podcast. The answer is not what most people think. Recent research shows that women's lower adoption of AI is driven less by skills or access than by systematic differences in how they perceive the societal risks of AI, such as mental health impacts, climate effects, privacy violations, labour disruption. Women express greater concern about AI's broader consequences, and these concerns directly influence their engagement with it. This isn't 'being behind'. It's thoughtful consideration. Here's what Nina and I discussed: ➡️ Why structural barriers matter more than individual ones. The gender gap won't be closed by telling women to 'lean in'. It will be closed by addressing legitimate concerns about how AI is built and deployed. It will also be closed by changing which AI innovations are funded. ➡️ Why representation isn't optional. When AI is shaped by a narrow group, it serves narrow interests. Fostering diverse leadership and diverse voices in AI isn't just about fairness; it's about creating technology that works for everyone. ➡️ What shifts the trajectory. When women see the societal benefits of AI being addressed properly, rather than dismissed, adoption increases substantially. Community, strategic education, perception and real influence over how AI develops all matter. We also discussed She Shapes AI's mission to amplify responsible AI leadership and entrepreneurship, and how our Executive AI Intensive programme helps leaders to develop the strategic skills needed to critically assess AI, ask the right questions, and lead its implementation confidently and responsibly. Listen to the full conversation 👇 Apple Podcasts: https://lnkd.in/eJM8C4Ti Spotify: https://lnkd.in/ezmj5XRm DM me for a special AI Sustainability partner offer for our Executive AI Intensive course. _ _ _ I'm Julia Stamm, founder of She Shapes AI. I work with leaders navigating AI transformation with purpose and responsibility. If you're asking similar questions, let's connect.

Women are not hesitant about AI. They are not trepidatious about using AI tools. They are not being “too careful” or wary about agents. I see this every day in my role as CEO of Chief and we saw it again in our new research with The Harris Poll: Senior women leaders are absolutely leaning in, building, scaling, and thinking about AI… a little differently. And this intentional approach will build better outcomes for the workplace and the humans who occupy it. What makes it different? From our research, 85% of women leaders who have a front-row seat to AI work in their business are taking action to create better human-AI collaboration in what they’re building. They’re also bringing that mindset into the places they can influence. I see women leaders at Chief holding this intention and understanding of impact — and we need to talk about it. I had the opportunity to take the stage at HumanX this week. In my talk I shared the three nonnegotiable imperatives that senior women leaders are keeping close, even while they manage the pressure for AI speed: 1. They decide what stays human. They are explicit about where human judgement is nonnegotiable in high-stakes decisions and in how we lead people. 2. They protect where that judgment develops, preserving the kind of starter-level roles where people learn to think critically and earn trust — where judgement is built and nurtured through experience. 3. They are already designing for human-AI collaboration knowing that having agentic roles in the org chart is inevitable, but we need to create spaces where humans and agents work together intentionally with humans in the center role. As our CMO Sabrina Caluori says, “You know who sets the standard for what good work looks like? The humans do — every time.” These imperatives aren’t meant to hold back progress — pausing in the middle of the unprecedented is the right instinct. Women leaders are asking the right questions that will not only drive business outcomes but rightfully interrogate not just what AI does for us, but what it might do to us. The pause is the point. Women leaders are leaning into everything AI to accelerate their work — but they are also seeking to drive that scale while building spaces in which humans can continue to inspire, collaborate, and create. These are essential rules for any leader who wants to get this right.

How Women’s Unique Evaluation Of AI Tools Influences Corporate Culture: “When it comes to adopting AI tools at work, studies have shown that men are more likely to experiment with these tools, while women tend to hesitate. That doesn't mean women are less tech-savvy or less open to innovation. It often means they're asking different questions. And those questions reveal something important about how corporate culture is being shaped in the AI era. Women in the workplace are not saying AI is bad. They’re not rejecting it outright. What they’re doing is pausing. They’re questioning how it works, who created it, what data it was trained on, and whether it could be misused. In many cases, they're also concerned about how others will perceive their use of it. Will they look like they're cutting corners? Will the tool reinforce bias? Will their job become obsolete? That kind of hesitation is discernment and the careful weighing of trade-offs. And it reflects a kind of emotional intelligence and long-term thinking that often gets undervalued in tech conversations. Companies that ignore these perspectives risk designing workflows, cultures, and even ethics policies that leave people behind. If you have a team where the loudest voices are the ones who embrace new tools quickly, and quieter voices are the ones raising concerns, you need to ask yourself: are you hearing the full story? Women may not be the early adopters of every AI tool, but they’re often the first to see unintended consequences. They may be the first to notice that the chatbot is reinforcing stereotypes, or that an AI-powered hiring tool is filtering out qualified candidates based on biased data, which are culture-shaping concerns. I've interviewed hundreds of executives, and the best ones aren't the people who jump on every new technology as soon as it hits the market. They're the ones who ask, ‘Does this make sense for our people? Does it help us do better work? Does it reflect the values we say we care about?’ And more often than not, it’s women who are asking those kinds of questions. Think about what that means in a practical sense. When a company is rolling out a new AI writing tool, a male leader might focus on efficiency. A female leader might ask if the tool risks replacing human insight or if it undermines original thinking. Neither approach is wrong. But they lead to different outcomes.” Read more 👉 https://lnkd.in/enqz6jNy ✍️ Article by Dr. Diane Hamilton #WomenInSTEM #GirlsInSTEM #STEMGems #GiveGirlsRoleModels

In conversations with other women in leadership positions, I am still seeing a disturbing trend. We are bringing some of the most valuable, thoughtful, and nuanced perspectives on how AI should be implemented in workplaces across the board. Yet, when it comes to the rooms where the tech is being designed, we’re still kept out. It seems I’m not alone because Chief and The Harris Poll heard from over 1,000 senior women leaders about the people-first approach to this new age of AI they’re pushing. Do these statistics surprise you? 87% of women leaders have witnessed negative consequences when AI is prioritized without parallel investment in people 85% of senior women leaders believe organizations investing in both AI and human development will outperform those focused on AI alone 84% have made smarter AI-related decisions because of insights from their community  We understand the importance of keeping humans in the loop. We’re overwhelmed with stories about the billions of dollars being spent on developing AI, while not investing nearly as much in the people powering the tech.   When it comes to navigating new experiences, the power of collaborative learning is real. Figuring out the best path forward with next generation tech is no different. Community is key, no matter the environment and no matter what stage you’re at in understanding your position among this increasingly infrastructural tech. This matters for us leaders, and for those we have a responsibility to support as they come up in this world. With a community around us, we can combat the AI shame spiral, and share and test ideas freely. The framework is there, and yet this isn’t enough. We can’t be mere users of this tech, we have to be the architects. Women make up just 22% of the workforce constructing AI, and not for lack of a vision of how everyone would most effectively benefit from it. There’s a gap that needs closing, and it’s up to all of us to close it 💫 🦋 Check out the full Chief report here: https://lnkd.in/eVd2W5Jt

👉🏾 Being a Black woman founder in AI means I see things differently. Not better. Not worse. Just different. And that difference matters. ⭐ Representation isn't just about optics: When the people building AI tools all come from similar backgrounds, they build for similar problems. - They build AI for venture capital pitch decks. For managing investment portfolios. For optimizing ad spend. For problems that affect people with capital. - They don't build AI for the nurse trying to start a home health care business. For the laid-off factory worker who needs to pivot to consulting. For the immigrant with skills but no credentials. Not because they're malicious. Because those problems aren't visible to them. I've been counted out my entire career. Told I didn't fit. Told I wasn't the right founder for investors to back. Told my companies weren't "scalable enough." I sold TBF anyway. Built digitalundivided anyway. Raised a $20M fund anyway. Wrote a Wall Street Journal bestseller anyway. That experience shapes how I build. I build for people who've been counted out. Because I know what that feels like. ⭐Building for communities VCs ignore: Venture capital backs less than 1% of all startups. And within that 1%, Black women founders get 0.03% of venture funding. That means 99.97% of Black women entrepreneurs are building without institutional support. Figuring it out on their own. Bootstrapping. Grinding. Those are the founders I'm building for. Not because I'm excluding others. Because I know these founders are already excluded everywhere else. ⭐ What's different about BUILD: We don't assume you have a Stanford degree. We don't assume you have family money. We don't assume you speak fluent Silicon Valley. We assume you're smart, resourceful, and determined. We assume you need tools that work, not theory that sounds good. We assume you're building out of necessity, not just opportunity. That's a different set of assumptions than most AI tools make. ⭐ Why this matters for everyone: When you build for the most excluded, you build something that works for everyone. When you solve for the hardest constraints, your solution is more resilient. BUILD works for the Black woman in Atlanta trying to start a catering business. And it also works for the white guy in Ohio trying to start a consulting practice. ⭐ The AI conversation needs diverse founders: Not for diversity's sake. For better products. Better solutions. Better outcomes. AI built by a homogeneous group will reflect homogeneous thinking. AI built by diverse founders will reflect diverse needs. I'm building BUILD because the AI tools that exist don't serve the communities I come from. And I'm betting those communities are ready for tools that actually work for them. See what's possible at buildthedamnthing.com ** Use LINKEDIN at checkout to get 50% during the month of January** #AI #Diversity #BlackFounders #WomenInTech #Entrepreneurship

AI is changing how we work & deciding who gets seen, promoted & trusted to lead. That was our biggest takeaway at the launch of NINEby9’s research, “The Moment of Truth: AI & the Future of Women in the Workplace”, hosted by HSBC, supported by Microsoft, Toluna & LinkedIn: 🔹 AI is reshaping work unevenly. Women remain underrepresented in AI-related roles, even as these roles increasingly shape influence & advancement. 🔹 An AI participation gap already exists & the regression has begun. In Spore alone, there is a ~10% gap between men/ women. Participation today shapes leadership tomorrow. 🔹 Women’s measured approach is a strength but recognition still favours the bold. Diligence, judgment & discretion should be advantages in an AI-enabled world, yet are often undervalued. 🔹 Companies are building while flying. Technology is advancing faster than organisational systems, leaving HR to retrofit transformation after the fact. 🔹 External hiring is outpacing internal growth. Organisations are paying premiums for AI talent instead of intentionally building capabilities from within. 🔹 Self-driven upskilling models disadvantage women. Time, access & confidence gaps are real. 🔹 Gen Z women face the greatest disruption, entering a workforce already reshaped by AI. 🔹 HR leaders are optimistic but often under-equipped to lead AI transformation at scale. 🔹 AI requires new systems, because it increasingly determines who gets visibility, opportunity & advancement. So the real question becomes: What do we do about it? As Founder of PHOENIXUS & someone working closely with senior women leaders who run businesses, sit on board & lead regional/ global teams, the answer lies in intentional design. A simple framework for action: For companies • Shift from credentials-based hiring to skills-based hiring. • Build AI capability internally, not just through expensive external hires. • Invest in HR as a strategic partner, not a downstream fixer. For managers • Recognise that AI excels at routine tasks, but leadership still requires discretion, judgment, & communication. • Value women’s strengths in sense-making, stakeholder alignment & ethical decision-making. These matter more, not less, in an AI world. For individuals • Treat skills as something you learn & apply continuously, not a one-time qualification. • Focus on skills that AI cannot easily replace: critical thinking, communication, leadership, & contextual judgment. • Seek structured, supported learning, not just self-driven upskilling. As LinkedIn rightly advocates, when we hire for skills rather than pedigree, we widen talent pipelines, surface overlooked capability & create more equitable access for women. At PHOENIXUS this reinforces why we invest so deeply in intelligent empowerment — continuous learning that builds confidence, capability, and leadership judgment, not just technical skills. Kudos the panel for anchoring this conversation in evidence & action!

It's been a whirlwind week of media coverage, with an appearance on CTV Your Morning leading to articles in CTV News, BNN Bloomberg, and Inc. Magazine. I've been talking about the gender gap in AI adoption. 18 global studies covering 140,000+ people revealed that women are 20-25% less likely than men to use GenAI tools at work. Researchers found the gap is nearly universal, and it persists even when access is equal. If this disparity continues, systems will learn from data that under-represent women, widening existing gaps in technology adoption and economic opportunity. The reasons for the gender gap vary. Women have lower familiarity with AI, and are more likely to want training while men "just try it." Women are afraid of being penalized at work for taking a risk with AI tools. As I said in an interview: "A man using emerging technology is called 'innovative.' A woman using emerging tech is 'cheating'. " Women are also concerned about bias in AI outputs. All of this adds up to a confidence gap - not a capability gap - and it slows adoption. If women sit on the sidelines of the AI revolution, they risk falling further behind. Their career growth stagnates, and gender pay inequities grow. I'm particularly interested in AI adoption amongst entrepreneurs. The top reasons why businesses adopt AI are to be more efficient and productive. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce's Business Data Lab says that GenAI could lift Canada’s labour productivity by 6% in the next decade. A report from Microsoft suggests that the average ROI for companies is $3.50 for every $1 invested in AI. If 20-25% of women and gender-diverse entrepreneurs sit out AI adoption, that's billions in GDP that Canada will never see. Even worse, we don't see the economic benefits of women-led businesses. The World Economic Forum says women-led firms are proven 'regenerative forces' - they reinvest locally and create greener, safer jobs. If women and gender-diverse entrepreneurs are left behind on AI, we don't just lose efficiency; we lose the very businesses that knit communities together. This is why I'm proud to be working on the AI Skills Lab Canada program (https://aiskillslab.ca). It's a national, women-led pilot from The Forum, Camp Tech Inc, and Growclass, with co-investment from DIGITAL. The program features free training and support for women, transfemme, and non-binary entrepreneurs to grow their businesses with AI. Our Labs blend short lessons and guided practice on core tools with a responsible AI lens, including data privacy, human-in-the-loop checks, and the Canadian legal context. Our goal is to move participants from awareness to first wins, then surround them with peer and mentor support so they keep going. If you lead, fund, or influence innovation and skills in Canada, this is a moment to act. If you are a gender-diverse entrepreneur, join us. If you already use AI, be a peer champion and show how you work. Let’s close the gap and grow the economy together.