Professionalism Is Not Neutral. We Just Pretend It Is.
Let’s talk about “professionalism”.
That word that gets thrown around in meetings, performance reviews, and subtle side-eyes like it’s a universal truth. As if we all quietly agreed on what it means. As if it dropped from the sky, fully formed, fair, and free of bias.
It didn’t.
What we call professionalism is not neutral. It is cultural. It is gendered. It is classed. And for years, it has gone largely unquestioned because the people who benefit most from it also get to define it.
Professionalism, as most workplaces understand it, was built around a very specific archetype. White. Male. Middle or upper class. Able-bodied. Emotionally restrained. Unencumbered by caregiving. With a wife at home handling the messy parts of life so he could show up calm, consistent, and conveniently uninterrupted.
That became the gold standard. Everyone else has been measured against it ever since.
Think about the traits we praise as “professional”. Calm under pressure. Direct but not emotional. Polished. Articulate. Neutral tone. Controlled body language. No visible mess. No visible struggle.
Now think about who gets penalised when they do not naturally fit that mould.
Women are told they are too emotional. Until they are too cold. Too soft. Too aggressive. Too smiley. Not smiley enough. We are encouraged to bring our whole selves to work, right up until our whole selves include hormones, caregiving responsibilities, or opinions delivered without a soothing tone.
Black women are labelled intimidating for speaking plainly. Working class accents are quietly corrected or filtered out. Neurodivergent people are marked down for communication styles that do not match the unspoken rules. Disabled bodies are judged as unprofessional if they need flexibility, rest, or visible support.
Even hair gets involved. Natural hair. Protective styles. Beards. Religious dress. All scrutinised through a lens that pretends to be about standards, when it is really about comfort.
And let’s not ignore class. Professionalism often assumes access. Access to the right clothes. The right diction. The right etiquette. The right confidence born from never having to wonder whether you belong in the room.
When someone says “they’re not very professional”, what they often mean is “they make me uncomfortable because they don’t mirror what I’m used to seeing in power”.
That discomfort is not a performance issue. It is a bias issue.
Here’s the kicker. These rules are rarely written down. They live in the air. Passed on through feedback like “polish it a bit” or “be more strategic” or the classic “this is how things are done here”.
Which makes them even harder to challenge.
The result? Whole groups of people spending exhausting amounts of energy code-switching, softening, shrinking, or overcompensating just to be seen as credible. Not better. Just acceptable.
Meanwhile, others get to simply exist.
This is why conversations about inclusion that stop at recruitment are lazy. The real work is questioning the norms that decide who gets promoted, who gets listened to, and who gets labelled difficult, emotional, or not quite ready yet.
Professionalism should not mean conformity. It should mean competence, integrity, accountability, and respect.
Not tone policing. Not aesthetic compliance. Not cultural mimicry.
The future of work demands something braver. Leaders who can tell the difference between standards and bias. Organisations willing to interrogate who their rules serve. And workplaces mature enough to realise that discomfort is not the same as dysfunction.
If professionalism requires people to erase parts of themselves to succeed, then it is not professionalism. It is exclusion dressed up as etiquette.
And frankly, we can do better than that.
Go on then. Who benefits from the version of professionalism you are working under right now? 👀
P.S Career mum juggling too much? Let’s fix that. Book a quick chat with me here.