A few weeks ago, I attended a conference and, as usual, eagerly listened to discussions about women's advancement and gender equality in the workplace. This is my passion, my research, and my focus. I was seated at the back, surrounded by many men, which suggested they were also interested in the topic. During the session, the first question was, "What can we do to boost women's progress at work?"

The initial answer (from a woman) made my heart sink... “Women lack confidence, need flexibility, should network more, promote themselves better, and work on their imposter syndrome. Of course, men exclude women, form boys’ clubs, and similar issues.”

I almost raised my hand to ask, “Are we still having the same conversation as 15 or 20 years ago? Are we still blaming women’s confidence and men’s exclusion? By now, should we not be shifting to science-based responses?”

While I believe there’s some truth in what is being said, what struck me most was that the arguments and themes echoed those of almost every panel at every conference I attended over the last 15 years, and how little attention we pay to what the research suggests we do about the topic of gender advancement.

I don’t know about you, but I cannot listen to this anymore, and it is fundamentally wrong for a few reasons:

1. It is not science-based, but rather opinion and stereotype-based.
2. It doesn’t acknowledge the structural, cultural, and leadership changes needed to create a workplace for all.
3. We ask women what it means to be a female leader or how they have overcome barriers, rather than asking strategic questions about the future of leadership, organizations, and workplaces.
4. We do not acknowledge differences in leadership behaviors between men and women.
5. We often present this topic as a competition between men and women.
6. It suggests that women struggle to support each other.

Why are we not asking women what they think about the future of leadership, how they collaborate with men to create a healthy, mature workplace for all, or simply what needs to change at the individual and organizational leadership levels to create a real shift, not just change the numbers?

In this writing, I want to present some thoughts from research, some of my personal experiences and opinions, and what I believe needs to shift for us to change this conversation to a more productive one.

Women are GOOD leaders who get stuff done!

There are three common reasons why women are less represented in management roles: (1) they might lack the necessary capability; (2) they may not be interested; or (3) they are both interested and capable but face the invisible barrier known as the glass ceiling. Of course, depending on your perspective, one of these explanations may feel more convincing than the other two.

Science is very clear about the skills and competencies of effective leadership, yet we do not hire, promote, or measure them. The confidence we tell women to have more of is not a competency. In my view, the primary explanation for the imbalance in gender representation in management is our tendency to conflate confidence with competence. We often interpret displays of confidence as a sign of ability, leading us to believe that men are better leaders than women. Essentially, when it comes to leadership, the main advantage men seem to have over women, whether in Argentina, Denmark, the USA, UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Japan, is that expressions of hubris, often disguised as charisma or charm, are frequently mistaken for leadership potential. These behaviors tend to appear more often in men than in women.

Across fields such as sports, politics, and business, the most inspiring leaders are often those who display humility (1). Whether this trait is natural or developed, humility tends to be more common among women than men. For example, women generally excel at emotional intelligence, which plays a key role in fostering modesty (2). A comprehensive review (3) of gender differences in personality, drawing on data from over 23,000 participants across 26 cultures, found that women are typically more sensitive, considerate, and humble than men. This insight aligns well with expectations in the social sciences. Building on this, humble leaders are more likely to behave in an inclusive way. So again, if you want to create a diverse and inclusive organization, make sure to have humble leaders, as this impacts their listening, curiosity, and most importantly, ego (5).

Additionally, when we look at negative personality traits, our large amount of data from thousands of managers worldwide shows that men tend to, more frequently, display arrogance, manipulation, and a willingness to take risks compared to women (4). It’s interesting to me that much of the recent conversation about encouraging women to “lean in” has been centered on urging them to adopt these less desirable leadership qualities. While these traits are often found in the leaders we select, we might want to ask ourselves if they truly should be.

Many of the most valuable traits of good leadership are often seen in those who may not immediately impress others with their management skills, especially women. Exciting new scientific research shows that women tend to adopt more effective leadership strategies than men (6). Back in 1990 (7), Alice Eagly and her colleagues discovered that female managers often inspire respect and pride among their teams. They communicate their vision clearly, empower and mentor those they oversee, and approach problem-solving with flexibility and creativity—traits commonly associated with “transformational leadership." They also tend to reward their team members fairly.

On the other hand, male managers often find it a bit more challenging to develop close relationships with their team members and might take longer to acknowledge growing performance. It's important to keep in mind that these findings could be affected by sampling biases, suggesting that women might need to be more qualified than men to be seen as leaders. Until we work to understand and fix these biases, we can't be completely certain.

Imposter Syndrome is a good thing – and men have it too – stop making it about women!

In my academic role, when I speak with students, no matter their gender, seniority, or entrepreneurial status, those stepping into something new are often quietly admitting a sense of self-doubt, often without calling it Impostor Syndrome. They’ll say things like, “I’ve never managed a team before,” or “This is my first time, I don’t know if I’m ready.” I recognize that discomfort immediately because I’ve felt it myself; I actually feel it most days.

But with the benefit of experience, I now see Impostor Syndrome less as a warning sign and more as an indicator of growth. I usually remind them (and myself) that no one is born knowing how to lead a team or raise capital; the only way to learn is by doing. That reassurance alone often brings visible relief, as if they’ve been given permission to try.

I encourage my students to reframe that uneasy feeling: it doesn’t mean they don’t belong, it means they’re stretching beyond what they already know. The only guaranteed way to avoid Impostor Syndrome is to avoid ever trying something new, ever taking a risk, and ultimately, never growing. A far better option is to let go of the pressure to have it all figured out, get comfortable with the title of “beginner”, and trust that learning through experience is exactly how new opportunities and real confidence are built.

Impostor Syndrome is a sign of your self-awareness, of understanding your gap, what it is I need to grow, etc. It is a growth tool, but it can also be a stagnation tool for those who decide to be paralyzed by it.

When we, women, perpetuate the bias in the room (aka: women supporting women)

During the panel, I found myself reflecting on how women on panels can sometimes unintentionally reinforce biases and give the impression to other women that, first, we may not fully understand the solutions, and second, that our success isn’t genuinely valued. It almost felt like there was competition for recognition among us. This made me think about the difference between scarcity and a fixed mindset, versus abundance and a growth mindset.

When women don’t support each other, it’s rarely because of personal hostility or “cattiness.” More often, it’s influenced by a complex mix of social conditioning, structural barriers, and survival strategies. These are really shaped by environments that haven’t always rewarded female collaboration. Research shows that in workplaces with limited opportunities for women or where gender bias exists, some women might feel pushed to compete instead of collaborating. Actions like distancing from other women, withholding mentorship, or taking on more traditionally “masculine” styles are usually responses to these systems, rather than signs of a lack of care or generosity toward others.

Several factors can help us understand this phenomenon. For example, in industries that are mostly male, senior women might experience what's sometimes called the “Queen Bee” effect, where achieving success has required a lot of effort and resilience. This can make mentoring others feel risky or exhausting. There might also be the scarcity mindset—the feeling that only one woman can make it to the top. This unintentionally turns potential allies into competitors. Plus, societal messages often portray women as rivals. Then there is the fear of judgment, alienation, demotion or some sort of repercussions for supporting each other. All of this, along with internalized biases, plays a part in why support doesn’t always show up as we would expect it to.

At the same time, it's really important to challenge the idea that women don’t support each other. Research shows that women often stand behind one another (8,9,10), and when they are better represented, it leads to more teamwork, less discrimination, and a more positive workplace vibe. Especially among younger women, there's a growing awareness of how uplifting it can be to support one another. The popular narrative is slowly changing, highlighting that when women come together and support one another, everyone wins: more opportunities open up, leadership pathways strengthen, and the idea of having only one woman at the table fades.

We just need more of these stories to be told—especially in panels such as this one I attended.

We are different – let’s embrace it!

In a world where men and women often find themselves compared and competing in the pursuit of equality, it’s easy to forget an important truth: men and women are actually not meant to be exactly the same. A thorough review of 50 years of research examines how men and women are judged differently for leadership qualities. By examining data from 1970 to 2020 through 13 new meta-analyses, the study highlights some interesting patterns in how men’s and women’s leadership styles differ. Of course, this isn’t about putting anyone in a box or labeling them, but rather about gaining a better understanding of the trends we see.

The research (6) paints a clear and compelling picture: women are often rated higher than men on many leadership behaviors that are closely linked to effectiveness. Interestingly, the only area where men tend to score higher is a leadership style often seen as less effective: communal leadership. Overall, in everyday leadership situations, women are frequently seen as doing more of what truly works, emphasizing ethics, inclusion, and relationships.

Women outperformed men across all six of the key communal behaviors studied, including acting with integrity, inspiring trust, showing genuine care for individuals, encouraging new ideas, fostering collaboration, and leading in a democratic or participative way. Even in more traditionally “agentic” areas of leadership, such as setting direction, focusing on tasks, and using rewards effectively, women were rated higher on the behaviors that actually drive performance. Men, by contrast, were more likely to be associated with passive or hands-off leadership approaches, which tend to be less effective in modern organizations.

It's truly fascinating to see how these patterns have developed over time and across different leadership levels. Since the mid-1990s, the gap has widened in many areas, with women receiving higher ratings for qualities such as individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, and participative decision-making. You can also notice differences across leadership tiers: women especially excelled in democratic leadership in middle management, while men were more often associated with directive or autocratic styles at that level. These observations mirror long-standing gender expectations: men are seen as assertive and task-focused, while women are seen as relational and supportive, yet they also challenge the idea that traditional “agentic” leadership is always the most effective. Instead, the evidence points to leadership styles that emphasize inclusion, care, and engagement, which are not only appreciated but are becoming increasingly vital.

Currently, I am acquainted with men who are exceptional leaders, demonstrating genuine concern for their team members, fostering talent development, and effectively accomplishing tasks. Therefore, we should not dismiss men's contributions. The central message is that we ought to cease instructing women to lead in a manner akin to men; instead, we should capitalize on the unique strengths they bring. These human skills will become increasingly valuable in organizations driven by artificial intelligence.

Why does competition not become collaboration?

An indicator of a truly healthy, mature, and human-centric organization is how employees collaborate. Do they engage in competition at every conceivable level, driven by a scarcity mindset, or do they operate under the belief that there are ample resources for all, promoting collaboration, assistance, constructive challenge, support, encouragement, and the development of mutual strengths?

The preceding scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that men and women possess complementary, rather than identical, strengths, which results in increased innovation, improved performance, and mutual success. Collaboration encourages a supportive environment that capitalizes on diverse perspectives, enhances creativity, and diminishes toxic competition. Working collaboratively enhances overall performance, whereas competition may impede productivity.

Women and men often bring complementary strengths to teams: women are known for their interpersonal skills, empathy, and collaborative, consensus-building approach, while men are typically socialized to be more competitive and assertive. When these different styles are intentionally combined, teams tend to become more balanced and successful. Evidence shows that mixed-gender teams are usually more innovative and productive because collaboration encourages a wider range of perspectives and ideas, whereas excessive competition can stifle creativity.

Working together towards shared goals also leads to better results for everyone, reducing negative behaviors and high-pressure feelings linked to competition, and creating a more inclusive and supportive environment where teams can thrive and individuals can do their best. Maybe we should start by asking ourselves: what skills does Scott have that could be helpful for me? Or perhaps Scott might wonder, "What strengths does Patty have that could support my growth?"

Ok – so what do we do about this? How can we not only shift the conversation but also create quick, visible changes?

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

What Women Need to do more of…

• Embracing an Abundance Mindset: Instead of focusing on scarcity, we need to recognize that numerous opportunities are available to everyone. Transitioning from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset fosters mutual support and collaborative efforts rather than competition.
• Actively Supporting and Mentoring One Another: More often than ever, we need to highlight the wonderful things that happen when women come together to support one another. Research shows that with greater representation and mutual support, women experience more teamwork, less discrimination, and enjoy a warmer, more positive workplace environment.
• Sharing and Amplifying Positive Stories: It is important to share more stories that support women, especially in public forums such as panels. When women share how inspiring it is to uplift each other, it shifts the story, especially among younger women, and shows that everyone benefits when we work together: more opportunities arise, leadership paths become clearer, and the old notion of only one woman at the table begins to fade away.
• We need to STOP Operating from Fear and Internalized Bias: Women often avoid supporting each other due to fear of judgment, alienation, demotion, or repercussions. These fears, combined with internalized biases shaped by societal messages that portray women as rivals, must be challenged and overcome. We need to change our mindset and take ownership of the story that we want to write for the next generation of women, so they don’t face what we did.

What Men can do to support…

• Recognize and Value Complementary Strengths: For all, it is important to promote collaboration, assistance, constructive challenge, support, encouragement, and the development of mutual strengths. Search for a female leader with whom you can collaborate and communicate to others the importance of it.
• Acknowledge Women's Leadership Capabilities: Men, acknowledge and express that women are excellent leaders. As research shows, women often bring leadership qualities that are highly effective, such as acting with integrity, inspiring trust, caring genuinely for others, encouraging new ideas, fostering teamwork, and leading in a participative manner.

LEADERSHIP LEVEL

• Balance Task-Focus with People-Focus: A diverse leadership team, including both men and women, can create a strong balance, blending the strategic and task-focused side of a project, often linked to agentic styles, with the caring and growth-oriented needs of team members, which are associated with communal styles. Research shows that women tend to excel in both areas, and by intentionally combining these strengths, a team can achieve top performance while also caring for everyone's well-being.
• Combine Active and Effective Leadership Styles: In a team setting, adopting a more lively and versatile leadership style, often seen in women, can really inspire progress and help maintain high standards. When combined with a more relaxed approach, which is sometimes associated with men, especially in highly autonomous teams, it creates a great balance. The key is to blend these styles thoughtfully, rather than sticking to just one. Being actively involved can steer the team through complex challenges, while a laid-back attitude allows experienced members to thrive, creating a flexible and supportive environment for everyone.
• Drive Innovation and Maintain Stability: A complementary partnership might see one leader inspiring creative problem-solving and innovation, while another leader focuses on shaping the structure, processes, and stability needed to bring those new ideas to life. This teamwork fosters balance between driving change and ensuring it is managed smoothly.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

• Adapt Leadership Across Organizational Levels: Organizations flourish most effectively when they incorporate a variety of leadership styles across their hierarchy. For instance, democratic and communal approaches are excellent for fostering consensus, particularly in middle management. At the same time, directive and task-oriented strategies offer clear guidance when needed. A leadership team that skillfully combines these methods at appropriate times can enhance the organization's vibrancy, flexibility, and overall success.
• Transform Organizational Culture: Organizational culture needs to move beyond a superficial, gender-neutral stance and actively acknowledge and dismantle the embedded biases that perpetuate inequality.
• Challenge Heteronormativity and Enable Bodiedness: It's important to examine the culture around us to identify and question its underlying assumptions about heteronormativity and able-bodied norms. This means considering everything from casual social interactions to common ways of speaking and dressing, and how these norms might unintentionally exclude or marginalized people who don't fit them. Embracing a broader understanding of gender and identity can help create a truly more welcoming and inclusive space for everyone.
• Embrace Different Knowledge: Create a welcoming environment that values diverse knowledge and experiences, especially those of marginalized and underheard voices. It involves questioning the usual hierarchy of knowledge that often overlooks personal lived experiences in favor of mainstream Western stories.
• Promote an Intersectional Understanding: Encourage employees and leaders to recognize that inequality isn't a single issue. A woman's experience is influenced by how her gender intersects with her race, class, age, and other social factors. This helps create a deeper, more compassionate understanding of privilege and challenge, going beyond basic ideas of gender inequality.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES

Often, structures and processes seem neutral on the surface, but they can secretly hold biases that deepen inequality. The aim is to find these hidden issues and thoughtfully redesign these systems for a fairer world.

• Deconstruct the "Ideal Worker" Norm: Organizational logic tends to revolve around an abstract "ideal worker", someone who is seen as disembodied and without a personal life. This idea is deeply influenced by gender and racial biases. To create a more inclusive environment, it's important to re-evaluate work requirements, scheduling, and career progression policies, ensuring they recognize and accommodate the diverse realities of people's lives.
• Audit for Systemic Disparities (Inequality Regimes): Take a closer look at key organizational practices like recruitment, hiring, wage-setting, and promotions to understand how they might inadvertently create and maintain systemic disparities across different groups such as gender, race, and class. This approach goes beyond simply identifying gender bias and explores the intricate, interconnected nature of inequality.
• Scrutinize Digitalization and Algorithmic Management: It's important to thoughtfully consider how technology is used. Algorithms in hiring, performance management, and other areas can sometimes reflect and even strengthen societal biases related to gender and race. Organizations should ensure that digital tools promote fairness rather than create new inequalities or deepen existing ones.

‍