Let's start out with the obvious conflict between people's thinking and their words. You're not actually expected to treat people equally, but you are expected to treat them fairly. Often treating someone fairly does mean they're getting equal treatment, but fair is a complicated concept and does hinge greatly on the context and the people involved. Where this comes up every day for a manager is the difference in how you treat the person who keeps screwing up and the person who's only screwed up once. Then of course there's the severity of the problem, the specific personality traits of the person, and most importantly there's the outcome you want to get out of it.

Now that said, I think you did the right thing. It wasn't her initial mistake that led to your outburst. You were upset because she hid the problem from the rest of you merely out of hubris. She was thinking "how could I be the one who made the problem?" Then she chose inaction in the face of a critical issue. I believe a public shaming is almost never appropriate, but serving up a slice of humble pie is the quintessential reason you should.

The heart of your question is whether her being female mattered in this instance. No, certainly not. As I said, hubris is easily resolved with a public shaming. I would be very interested to hear about her performance and changes in behavior after that event.

Circling back to fair versus equal treatment, very often being female does matter. The clear things are anything involving heavy physical labor. If in the office there's a sudden need to lift 50 pound boxes, it's not really appropriate to recruit the female office staff. Chivalry is not dead, and it shouldn't be. When dealing with the nuance of communication, when you don't know enough about a person it's a good idea to lean on generalizations at least a little bit until you learn more. Generally, women prefer a gentle tone when talking to them. There simply aren't many women that respond well to the harsh ways men tend to talk to each other. In general, yes, being more gentle in your words with women may not be equal, but it is fair. It's fair in the sense that you as a manager strive to understand the needs of each employee so as to best motivate them to their highest performance capacity. You learn as a manager that some people respond well to a certain tone and others not so well. And when you don't know them so well, it's perfectly fair to lean on common assumptions that are generally true. I understand that these assumptions can be heavily contested, but we're talking about personal interactions with individuals. Just try not to put your foot in your mouth.

Let's start out with the obvious conflict between people's thinking and their words. You're not actually expected to treat people equally, but you are expected to treat them fairly. Often treating someone fairly does mean they're getting equal treatment, but fair is a complicated concept and does hinge greatly on the context and the people involved. Where this comes up every day for a manager is the difference in how you treat the person who keeps screwing up and the person who's only screwed up once. Then of course there's the severity of the problem, the specific personality traits of the person, and most importantly there's the outcome you want to get out of it.

Now that said, I think you did the right thing. It wasn't her initial mistake that led to your outburst. You were upset because she hid the problem from the rest of you merely out of hubris. She was thinking "how could I be the one who made the problem?" Then she chose inaction in the face of a critical issue. I believe a public shaming is almost never appropriate, but serving up a slice of humble pie is the quintessential reason you should.

The heart of your question is whether her being female mattered in this instance. No, certainly not. As I said, hubris is easily resolved with a public shaming. I would be very interested to hear about her performance and changes in behavior after that event.

Circling back to fair versus equal treatment, very often being female does matter. The clear things are anything involving heavy physical labor. If in the office there's a sudden need to lift 50 pound boxes, it's not really appropriate to recruit the female office staff. Chivalry is not dead, and it shouldn't be. When dealing with the nuance of communication, when you don't know enough about a person it's a good idea to lean on generalizations at least a little bit until you learn more. Generally, women prefer a gentle tone when talking to them. There simply aren't many women that respond well to the harsh ways men tend to talk to each other. Being more gentle in your words with women may not be equal, but it is fair. It's fair in the sense that you as a manager strive to understand the needs of each employee so as to best motivate them to their highest performance capacity. You learn as a manager that some people respond well to a certain tone and others not so well. And when you don't know them to well, it's perfectly fair to lean on common assumptions that are generally true. I understand that these assumptions can be heavily contested, but we're talking about personal interactions with individuals, not anything bigger than simply talking. Just try not to put your foot in your mouth.