So, in November 2024, the US Elections to choose the next POTUS took place, with the 45th President Donald Trump becoming the 47th, which resulted in a myriad of reactions, both positive and negative. Donald Trump’s victory over the 49th VP of the US Kamala Harris left some disappointed or sad, because they may have been hoping for 2024 to be the year the US gets its first female POTUS. But, the way it was spoken about seemed very interesting: “Kamala vs Trump”. When Joseph Biden was competing against Donald Trump in 2020 to be POTUS, the battle seemed to be labelled “Biden vs Trump”. In 2016, when Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump, it appeared to be “Hillary vs Trump”. And before that, when Barack Obama was competing with Mitt Romney for POTUS, it seemed to be “Obama vs Romney”.
Notice anything interesting about the above permutations? The male political candidates are referred to by their surnames: Trump, Obama, Biden and Romney, while the female political candidates are referred to by their first names: Kamala and Hillary.
But, seriously, what’s in a name? According to a 2018 study, people were more likely to refer to male professionals by their surname. According to the research, even fictional male characters might be referred to more by their first names than their female counterparts. On the surface, that might sound trivial, but it might make you wonder whether there are some deeper and systemic biases embedded in how we talk about people. A male leader referred to by their surname might be thought of as being of higher status, having more authority and competence, more deserving of benefits and awards & more. The surname ends up being not just an identifier, but, maybe, a signal of authority and respect.
It seems like over time, people might have been addressed by their surname to signify power and authority. There might even be a variation with surnames for male figures, while surnames or full names for female figures. Darwin vs Marie Curie. Dickens vs Emily Dickinson. Shakespeare vs Jane Austen. Even in male-dominated fields, like science, where women might already be struggling to gain equal recognition, could being referred to by their first name erode their credibility?
So, with Kamala Harris, could the frequent usage of her first name in public discourse have played a role in undermining her perceived authority or infantilizing her? Of course, there could be multiple reasons why Donald won over Kamala, but could this have been a factor, as well? And if this bias could impact a woman vying for the highest office in all the land, imagine how this might be playing out for the everyday woman.
Yet, Kamala Harris might have leveraged being referred to as just “Kamala” as a way to seem more relatable, humanizing, approachable and friendly. Kamala Harris seems to be okay with her first name as the identifier, with one of her campaign social media accounts being called “KamalaHQ”.
People you call by their first name are typically your friends or family or someone you’re close with. But, could this familiarity diminish status? It’s interesting to think that familiarity could breed contempt or even diminish respect. Could it strip away an aura of authority? Could a surname be a way to curate an image of a strong or authoritative figure? On the other hand, if a woman leader is referred to by their surname, some wonder whether that might make them seem unlikable or aggressive. Doesn’t seem right that the same trait would be penalized in a female leader.
According to Natalia Zenoni Ortiz, Learning Operations Coordinator, Consultant & Facilitator – Feminuity, “Language matters. From the tone we use to how we pronounce candidates’ names, the way we communicate about candidates can affect public perception. Referring to a woman candidate by their first name can be a tactic that undermines their credibility and professionalism. This is a challenge women have historically faced and continue to experience. It can act as a microaggression, reinforcing power imbalances in the workplace—and, in this case, in the context of a US presidential run”.
Maybe, some women leaders would want to be referred to by their first name to foster some camaraderie, but, paradoxically, it would make them appear more approachable, yet less commanding. And if there’s a high-stakes negotiation or an investor meeting, that could undermine a woman leader’s position, affecting her ability to close the deal or secure funding. When looking for VC funding, could this mean that female founders being addressed informally would lead to their business acumen being questioned more? Could they be seen as unserious or immature to potential investors?
Who’d have thought that language could be weaponized to undermine authority tangibly? That might lead to a lack of confidence for aspiring and current women leaders, decreased ambitions and maybe, fewer women in positions of power.
Ortiz remarks, “Context matters. From the culture to the industry in which we operate, these are all essential factors to consider when discussing strategies for fostering connections between women leaders and their teams. In some cultures, the use of honorifics may be more valued, while in others, a first-name basis may be more common in workplaces and institutions. The key to connecting effectively with people lies in identifying these contextual variables and determining which approach is most appropriate.
For instance, women leaders in the US education sector might choose to use their first names to build rapport with their peers. In contrast, those working in more man-dominated fields, such as the automotive industry within the US, may prefer to use their last names to create a professional boundary in an environment that can sometimes be exclusive or dismissive of women in leadership roles. These decisions will also be influenced by the organizational culture itself. Does the organization support women leaders to have a choice when it comes to how they are referred to? Is respecting people’s names a value that has been established within the company values of the organization? All of these factors matter when it comes to how we choose to portray ourselves in the workplace”.
On top of that, many surnames are that of the father, though, even if someone took their mother’s surname, they’d actually be taking on the surname of their grandfather. So, there’s no winning there, mostly. A woman might surreptitiously be the bearer of male surnames, with their last name sometimes being changed after marriage. That might imply that even if referred to by a surname, a woman’s identity could be tied to their relationship. And if men are called solely by their surnames, they might be perceived as more competent than they actually are, which might influence how much funding they get or how they advance in their careers.
Ortiz declares, “It is not a woman’s responsibility to assert respect from their peers in the workplace regarding the name they choose to use. Whatever choice that woman leader makes, it is up to their peers to hold each other accountable in supporting and consistently upholding that choice across the organization. Team members can promote this by engaging in workplace allyship strategies, such as ‘calling in’ a colleague who continues to use a woman leader’s first name after being asked to use their last name. Peers can also model allyship by respectfully correcting others who use the wrong name or title in real time during meetings or presentations, both when the woman leader is and is not in the room. If the issue persists, the organization may need to have a deeper conversation about its values and how team members’ behaviours align with these essential principles”.
With names, there could even be intentional attempts to botch the name to undermine the person. Kamala Harris’ opponent Donald Trump seemed to have continuously mispronounced her name on the campaign trail, even admitting he couldn’t care less about getting it right. To combat something like this, Kamala Harris’ grandnieces made an appearance at the DNC to emphasize her pronunciation was “comma-la”, though she has pronounced it differently multiple times whilst introducing herself.
“Dismissing the correct pronunciation of a racialized woman candidate’s name can also function as a microaggression, undermining and disregarding their racial and cultural identity”, states Ortiz.
Could institutions and companies advocate a standard naming convention for male and female professionals? Maybe, it could be first names as the standard or surnames as the standard. In some tiny way, that could level the playing field. Maybe, women leaders could define the narrative and proactively set the tone for how they’d like to be addressed, maybe through how they sign off in emails or memos or how they introduce themselves.
“For thought leaders and the media, one of the best practices to prevent bias and discrimination in communication is to take cues directly from the candidate. Ask yourself, how do they refer to themselves? Instead of imposing a particular name or title, respect their preferences… The key question we should ask ourselves is this: How can we, as accountable peers and team members, amplify and support women in leadership? One way is by paying close attention to how they choose to refer to themselves and consistently reflecting that choice back to them, signalling respect and support for their leadership”, opines Ortiz.
But, could this be making a mountain out of a molehill? Could it be that people get referred to by the more uncommon identifier? It could be that people may be referred to by which of their names are more uncommon. Between “Donald” and “Trump”, Trump’s more uncommon. Between “Kamala” and “Harris”, Kamala’s more uncommon, especially in the West. Between “Hillary” and “Clinton”, Hillary might be more uncommon, especially when Clinton might make people think of her husband, who had a more common name like “Bill”. Between “Mark” and “Zuckerberg”, Zuckerberg is more unique. Between “Jeff” and “Bezos”, Bezos sounds more novel. On the other hand, a politician like Bernard Sanders is often referred to as “Bernie”, while Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez is called “AOC”. Elon Musk has been called both “Elon” and “Musk”.
Or could how someone is identified in terms of first name vs surname really change the game? Schoolteachers may be called “Sir” or “Ma’am”, but that doesn’t directly mean that all the students respect them or think of them highly. Maybe, there could be more pressing or substantive issues to address in order to move towards gender equality, but, maybe, just maybe, this could be one step in the right direction. Or maybe, the idea must be planted in people’s heads that whether you refer to someone by their first name or by their surname, it shouldn’t impact the level of respect you have for them. This might be especially true in startups, where people might address each other by their first names, which might create more team collaboration and cohesion.
If there really is this kind of naming bias, looking at how to deal with this might not just be some form of tokenism or political correctness. Maybe, something as miniscule as this could just shape our perceptions and by extension, the reality around us.
In India, while women constitute almost half of its population, it seems like about 8000 out of 127,000 startups have women founders. Does how they’re addressed impact how they progress?
“Don’t hesitate to request accountability from your peers at work. Regardless of the leadership style you choose, respect is a two-way street that thrives when we expect the same level of respect that we model in our daily practices”, quips Ortiz.
