Sex and gender differences in leadership have been studied from a variety of perspectives, including personality traits, sex and gender roles, and intersectional identities, to name a few. Scholars from fields such as leadership studies, management, psychology, and sociology have taken interest. The terms sex and gender, and their definitions, have been used inconsistently and sometimes interchangeably in the leadership and management fields, leading to some confusion. Most scholarship has explored topics relating to women and leadership, rather than to men, intersex people, or transgender or non-binary people.
Scholars have noted the importance of understanding women's leadership because research has shown that while women are less likely to emerge as leaders than men, women have been found to be more effective in many contexts. Significant organizational potential is lost when qualified women are underrepresented in leadership positions. Scholars also see an ethical imperative to close the gender pay gap, reduce discrimination, overcome gender stereotypes, and improve material outcomes for all women.
Major topics of interest have included leadership traits, behaviors and styles, leader emergence, and leader effectiveness. Studies reveal patterns of sex and gender differences in leadership that occur as average overall effects, with overlap between men and women. A variety of situational, cultural, and individual variables affect the results of studies, as do time periods, which makes it difficult to summarize overall differences. Stereotypes about men and women can make it difficult to determine actual versus perceived differences. Sex and gender discrimination against women, stigma toward nonbinary and trans people, and simplification of men and masculinities play large roles in shaping perceptions of leadership and gender, as well as in leaders' internal conceptions of themselves. Academic research has focused on Western models of leadership using English-speaking participants, which has greatly limited understanding. Scholars have charted several research agendas for further investigation into barriers to women's leadership; cultural differences; and the effect of virtual work environments, as well as expanding study of gender to include trans, nonbinary, and men's leadership.
Underrepresentation of women leaders
Women are underrepresented in leadership positions. Studies over the past twenty years show that as one looks higher in management hierarchies, the proportion of women decreases, especially in private-sector jobs. A 2022 study by LeanIn and McKinsey & Company, which surveyed over 40,000 employers, found that 60% of managers and 74% of C-suite executives were men. Several studies show women "are less likely than similarly qualified men to obtain jobs with higher social and monetary rewards … and to gain access to positions of power" and earn less for equivalent work, "even after adjusting for education and preferences for full-time employment." The representation and compensation of gender-diverse leaders is unknown due to lack of research.
The term glass ceiling refers to women's restricted access to managerial levels. Studies suggest that sex discrimination against women leaders may best be explained by viewing relevant social systems as inherently gendered, rather than focusing individual situations and personal attributes.
The glass ceiling metaphor has led to further research into "glass walls" and "glass cliffs." Glass walls describe the unequal distribution of women and men across occupations, particularly between "line" jobs, which are central to providing organizational products and services and are dominated by men, and "staff" jobs, which are more peripheral and offer fewer opportunities for promotion. The glass cliff phenomenon refers to "the tendency for women to be more likely than men to be appointed to risky or precarious leadership positions, encapsulated by the phrase "think crisis—think female".
Scholars have explored why women remain underrepresented in leadership roles. Women continue to face a gender pay gap and often have less human capital compared to men. Although men are doing more housework and childcare than in the past, women still spend more time on these responsibilities, which can take away from their work time. A systematic review found that men may have access to valuable social networks that women do not, giving them valuable access to institutional knowledge, technical knowledge, and connections to decision makers. Culturally and linguistically-diverse women leaders face additional barriers to success and receive less support for career development.
Policy makers and the general public sometimes suggest gender underrepresentation is determined by women's preferences. However, choice and discrimination are not mutually exclusive. Women's preferences are shaped by cultural and social norms, gender biases of teachers and parents, and the emotional and nonverbal reactions they experience throughout adulthood. A meta-analysis revealed no gender difference between adult men and women in similar occupations regarding their desire for leadership, promotions, or autonomy. There are also no gender differences found in commitment to their careers or organizations. However, motherhood and corresponding steps to reduce work demands are sometimes seen as signs of low organizational commitment. Women report a greater desire for job flexibility. While men are more likely to quit jobs overall, women are more likely to do so for family reasons.
The industries, organizations, and companies where women work influence the representation of women leaders. Women face less bias in education but more in the field of law. Women entrepreneurs tend to struggle more than men, possibly because they are more likely to decline to work long hours and are stereotyped as less willing to take risks. Male-dominated contexts, whether at the industry or company level, also disadvantage women, due to tokenism, stereotypes about lack of fit, and exclusion from informal networks.
Leadership opportunities and women's representation in leadership are expanding. The proportion of women leaders is increasing, and attitudes about women as leaders are becoming more supportive. In the United States, people's attitudes toward the idea of a woman as president, willingness to work for a female boss, and women leaders in general are more positive than in the past. And in the United States as early as 2002, most adults believe men and women should have equal responsibility for childcare. However, leadership roles still show occupational gender segregation, with women concentrated in "feminine" leadership roles such as human resources, and in "feminine" sectors like health, social work, and education.Eagly, Alice. "Women's Access to Leadership Has Improved but Gender Has Reasserted Itself in the Gender Segregation of these Roles." Presentation to the International Leadership Association, Chicago: November 8, 2024. Men, on the other hand, are "concentrated in 'strategic' areas like research and development, profit and loss, and operations." Therefore, progress in resolving the underrepresentation is women is industry-dependent.
Discrimination and stereotypes Women and gender-diverse leaders frequently face discrimination on their leadership journeys. Decades of research have found that women are "given less access to training, poorer performance evaluation, and fewer organizational rewards" than similarly qualified men. Studies also reveal high discrimination against women in more senior roles that offer higher status and wages, and "against both sexes when they applied for jobs dominated by the other sex." Organizational culture and structure have been shown to create more challenges for women than men. Women's typically greater domestic responsibilities, time spent away from paid work, limited networking and mentoring opportunities, and the masculine orientation of many workplace cultures create second-generation bias barriers for women.
A major factor in discrimination against women leaders is perceptions of their competence. Stereotype-based biases lead to assumptions of women's incompetence affecting their recruitment, selection, and performance appraisal and compensation decisions. Even when controlling for quality of performance, women leaders and managers receive lower evaluations than their male counterparts Unless in a feminine setting, women must display "greater evidence of skill than men to be considered equally competent." Studies show that women exert more influence with men when they demonstrate lower levels of competence; men are more influenced by other men than equally competent women; and men preferred to hire male over female applicants with equal or superior job qualifications.
Gender-diverse leaders, especially leaders of color, face transphobic discrimination, harassment, assault, barriers to advancement, non-inclusive policies, binary expectations, isolation, silencing, stigma, and microaggressions. African American trans men leaders often stay closeted to avoid dual discrimination based both on both their trans identities and Black male stereotypes.
Stereotypes Stereotypes about men, women, and leadership contribute to discrimination. Studies within two major frameworks, Heilman's lack of fit model and role congruity theory, provide strong evidence that people are prejudiced against women leaders because stereotypes about women do not match with those about leaders, especially in jobs and fields considered to be male. Leadership is often seen as a masculine trait, especially by men, although less so in educational organizations and moderate-status leader roles.
Heilman's lack of fit model explains how descriptive stereotypes about women influence perceptions about their leadership. Motherhood status and physical attractiveness increase perceptions of women's incompetence. In contexts where women are rare, stereotypes are amplified, making it less likely for women to be selected for opportunities or promoted.
In fields stereotyped as male, such as upper-level management, the military, STEM fields, and entrepreneurship, women are seen as incongruent with the context and are evaluated more negatively than men. Evaluators are less likely to rate women highly when criteria are vague, such as "resilient" or "forward-thinking." In male-dominated contexts, evaluators are also more likely to downgrade women whose performance has declined, and less likely to upgrade them when they improve.
Figure reproduced from Heilman, Caleo, & Manzi, 2024 under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Prescriptive stereotypes, on the other hand, dictate how women and men leaders should and should not behave. For example, traits like dominance, insensitivity, ambition, assertive, and emotional displays of anger and pride are considered "off-limits for women." At the same time, women are penalized for not engaging in stereotypical feminine behaviors like care, altruism and agreeableness.
Women who defy these prescriptive stereotypes face several disadvantages, including lower chances of recruitment, less favorable negotiation outcomes, diminished influence, limited access to social networks, and worse salary recommendations. Additionally, women are penalized simply for being successful in fields that are not traditionally associated with their gender.
Stereotypes have also been studied within a framework of agency and communion. The agency and communion model is widely used and validated, and seems to apply across different cultures. Agency includes qualities like task orientation, goal achievement, assertiveness, and dominance. Communion is said to encompass kindness, warmth, helpfulness, concern for others, and building relationships.