Women find male personas get them noticed on LinkedIn Algorithm or advantage?

LinkedIn, long regarded as the calm, professional corner of social media, is now facing growing scrutiny over gender bias and visibility disparities. According to a Financial Times opinion piece, women and women of colour on the platform have increasingly reported dramatic drops in the reach of their posts, prompting some to take a radical step: pretending to be men.

The experiment, motivated by suspicions that LinkedIn’s algorithm “suppresses” content from women, has revealed striking results, with users seeing engagement soar when they adopted male personas.

The phenomenon began when Megan Cornish, a strategist for mental health brands, noticed a decline in visibility for women’s posts. To test the theory, she presented herself as a man on LinkedIn, using AI to rewrite her career summary and older posts in “more male, ‘agentic’ language.”

The result was immediate: her post views increased by 400 per cent. Following this, a broader movement emerged in the form of the campaign group Fairness in the Feed, which has launched a petition calling for “fair visibility for all on LinkedIn” and urging the Microsoft-owned platform to clarify its algorithms.

Other users have reported similar boosts. PR agency founder Aceil Haddad, who changed her pronouns to “he/him” three weeks ago, saw her engagement rise by 175 per cent.

“We’re told the playing field is equal, while the data and lived experience prove otherwise. In a climate where business competition is fierce, we need every advantage we can get,” Haddad told the Financial Times. These observations suggest that perceived gender identity can have a tangible impact on how content is prioritised in the feed, raising questions about the platform’s fairness.

For users whose professional livelihoods rely on visibility, the stakes are high. Cindy Gallop, founder and CEO of Make Love Not Porn, described the drop in post impressions as “catastrophic” for those promoting their businesses. “The way I articulate it is that algorithmic suppression equals economic oppression,” she said.

Despite LinkedIn’s statement that “our algorithms do not use gender as a ranking signal, and changing gender on your profile does not affect how your content appears in search or feed,” users remain sceptical. The company emphasises that it regularly evaluates its systems for gender-related disparities, alongside ongoing reviews and feedback.

Part of the issue may also be structural. LinkedIn posts and engagement are growing — posts are up 15 per cent year-on-year and comments 24 per cent — increasing competition for attention.

Studies beyond LinkedIn reinforce the broader problem: research in Nature Communications found that women academics self-promote 28 per cent less than men on X, citing cultural barriers and adverse reactions to speaking out. On LinkedIn, where self-promotion is the norm, this reluctance can compound visibility challenges.

The Financial Times piece argues that LinkedIn, despite its professional veneer and potential for civil discourse, is overdue for change. While the platform remains a vital networking tool for millions, the gender-based disparities in content reach highlight structural flaws.

As AI-generated content dominates social feeds, the importance of authentic human storytelling may grow, but the current visibility gaps for women users suggest the playing field is far from level.

By Tamilla Hasanova