Why Aren’t There More Women in Leadership Roles?

Why aren’t there more women in leadership roles? A lot of ink has been spilled over this question. Often, articles focus on the inherent qualities in women that prevent them from flourishing as leaders—we aren’t “businesslike,” we’re bossy, we’re indecisive, we’re too emotional, we prefer to focus on family matters, we can’t handle the pressure of leadership. It goes on and on. 

It is striking that these assumptions imply the primary issue holding women back is being a woman. In essence, the implication is that qualities of being “womanlike” create greater obstacles than, say, existing power structures that favor men over people of other gender identities. But, of course, many of us are acutely aware of this. Women often face an undue amount of scrutiny for their behavior. To paraphrase the 2023 movie Barbie:

“[Women] have to always be extraordinary, but somehow we’re always doing it wrong. [. . .] You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean. You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You’re supposed to love being a mother, but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman but also always be looking out for other people.”

A long list of adjectives is reserved for women: shrill, domineering, bossy, soft, scattered, etc. Women are also less likely than men to receive concrete feedbackabout their performance.

The reasons women are rejected from leadership roles are so variable and contradictory that they raise questions about whether factors beyond merit and capability are at work. Thanks to the rich personality data we’ve collected at Hogan Assessments, we know what factors impact performance.

Our Research

Recent research by our data science team examines several of the key myths surrounding women’s personalities as they relate to their advancement into leadership positions. The research reviewed three large datasets of more than 25,000 global executives, including personality scores, performance ratings, and key competencies. The research aimed to (1) understand if men and women differ in their personality characteristics and (2) identify any gender differences in personality characteristics that predict leadership effectiveness.

Let’s break these myths down.

Myth #1: Women are not as ambitious as men. 

The misconception here is that women often lack the drive for leadership positions or may prioritize their families over their careers. People might also assume ambition always looks like competitiveness or ruthlessness, when instead it could be putting in long hours or building influence with coworkers. “Masculine” approaches to leadership are often viewed as the default and therefore “correct” way to lead.

This myth was tested using the Ambition scale from the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), which measures individual initiative, competitiveness, and desire for leadership. The data show that men and women in executive roles are equally ambitious and that these ambition scores predict performance equally for both genders.

Myth #2: Women are less decisive and more risk averse than men. 

We often think about risk-taking as making bold moves. However, strategic decision-making involves weighing outcomes and being thoughtful about the risk, which is not the same as being risk averse. This research measured decisiveness and risk aversion with the Cautious and Dutiful scales from the Hogan Development Survey (HDS). High scores on Cautious indicate risk aversion, being overly careful, and being fearful of failure. High scores on Dutiful can indicate eagerness to please, to the point of deference and ingratiation. These scales can suggest difficulty making decisions or taking risks at work. Although indecisiveness can hinder leadership for everyone, the scores for men and women showed no meaningful differences.

Myth #3: Women can’t handle the stress of leadership roles. 

This myth stems from stereotypes that women lack the emotional stability and stress tolerance to manage high-pressure situations. This research looked at stress resilience using a combination of metrics. These included HPI Adjustment, or how one reacts to stress and pressure; HDS Excitable, which concerns emotional volatility under atypical conditions; and the Handling Stress competency from the Hogan Competency Model (HCM). Once again, stress management is an important predictor of leadership success; men and women do not differ in their scores on these measures.

Myth #4: Women are less strategic than men. 

Strategic thinking is important for leadership roles; leaders must set the direction and influence others to work toward long-term goals. This myth suggests that women are viewed as more tactical or operational than men. To test this, we evaluated strategic thinking by looking at scores on HPI inquisitive, which concerns imagination, curiosity, creative potential, and long-term thinking, and HCM competencies “driving strategy” – directing efforts to achieve long-term business objectives, and “strategic dimension” – positioning the organization for long-term success. Our results again indicate no meaningful differences in strategic abilities between men and women.

Myth #5: Women are less innovative than men. 

Similar to driving strategy, innovation is a key performance indicator for leaders. Innovative thinking is about understanding the landscape and finding opportunities to shake up the status quo. People often assume innovation is about disruption and novelty, but innovation can also be about steady, transformative improvements. To measure this, we looked at the HPI Inquisitive scores alongside the HCM competency Driving Innovation, which concern stimulating creative ideas and perspectives that add value. Once again, our research found no meaningful differences between men and women in this area.

The Implications

For those of us who talk about personality every day, the results of this research are unsurprising. We see time and time again that individual differences in personality should not be extrapolated to larger groups. So, what is the significance of knowing that personality characteristics of successful leaders don’t differ between men and women? And what barriers truly impede women from leadership positions?

Challenging Assumptions About Leadership

First, it is important to challenge our assumptions of a successful leader. The data from this research indicate that the perceived differences in men and women leaders are culturally assigned, not inherent to the person. At Hogan, we often discuss the difference between leadership emergence and effectiveness.Leadership emergence is about who rises to the top—often the politicians, the self-promoters, or those who look the part. Leadership effectiveness is about who succeeds in leadership roles. Effective leaders build and maintain high-performing teams. It is a mistake to confuse the two, and our data show that women can be just as effective as men.

Fighting Stereotypes About Women

Second, this data is essential to fight against harmful stereotypes about women in leadership roles. Stereotypes get internalized. The more a woman hears that her gender is less successful, the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stereotype threat is a real thing. Given the prevalence of articles in the popular media about what characteristics are holding women back, it’s no wonder people assume these to be true. When data runs counter to widely shared stereotypes, it is important to bring attention to it.  An increasingly large body of research suggests that women outperform men in certain areas, such as emotional stability, despite perceptions of the contrary. This research makes one wonder if certain leadership skills have developed as a result of the intense scrutiny that women face. After all, being under constant surveillance forces a certain level of self-awareness.

Addressing the Real Barriers for Women in Leadership Roles

Third, and perhaps most importantly, correcting these misconceptions allows us to focus on the real barriers that hold women back. These barriers are multifaceted, and intersectionality adds to the complexity. Redirecting the conversation to address structural barriers and systemic inequities is much more likely to move the needle than circular arguments about how women just can’t get it right. Current political discussions focused on merit and merit-based hiring decisions need to be grounded in objective data that truly support the most qualified candidates. Looking beyond stereotypes enables us to focus on the leadership qualities that actually matter.

 

* Article provided by courtesy of Hogan Assessment