Men represent half of the world’s population and approximately 54% of the total labor force in North America and the European Union. However, they are less likely to hold leadership positions in raising children, taking care of the sick and elderly, and domestic work. When it comes to paid leadership positions, however, they dominate. (See what I did there? :) )
Here are the numbers:
In business: Only a quarter of C-suite leaders in the United States are women, and women of color make up just one in 16 of these positions. In 2023, only 52 of Fortune 500 companies had female CEOs, of which only 2 were women of color.
In healthcare: Despite comprising the majority of the healthcare sector workforce, only 25% of healthcare leaders in the United States are female.
In academia: Women are overrepresented in entry-level faculty positions, such as assistant professor, and underrepresented in senior-level positions, such as associate and full professor, dean, and president.
In politics: On the EU level, women are consistently underrepresented in every national parliament, where they constitute less than 50% of the members, and in the EU Parliament, where they make up only 40% of the representatives. Female politicians in Austria are still underrepresented on every governance level. Only 219 of 2093 Austrian municipalities were led by a female mayor in 2023, and there has never been a female president in the history of Austria. At the beginning of the 118th US-American Congress in 2023, one quarter of the US Senate was female. The share of women among voting members in the House of Representatives was only 28.5%, and 30% among state senate seats. Furthermore, only 24% of US governors and 48% of cabinet members were female in 2023.
The effects of gender imbalances in leadership positions
In a world in which most leadership positions are held by (predominantly white, cis-gendered, middle-aged) men, other groups are frequently forgotten. The needs and desires of women sometimes significantly diverge from those of men – yet it is primarily only the latter group that is entrusted with making decisions for everyone. Caroline Criado-Perez’s 2019 groundbreaking book Invisible Women gives a wide range of excellent examples of the damaging effects of the unequal distribution of decision-making power. For example: women frequently experience physical discomfort in office environments, where room temperatures are typically set based on the metabolic rate of men - leaving women feeling cold. Or: women are more likely to receive improperly fitting safety clothing in male-dominated industries, since the clothing was designed with men as the model.
It is not just individual women who suffer because of lower representation among leaders. Companies, too, lose out on a great deal of potential talent. Studies have found that female leaders are rated significantly higher on desirable transformational leadership characteristics, such as inspirational motivation, contingent reward, idealized influence, and individualized consideration. Research (like McKinsey) shows that gender-diverse companies are likely to outperform competitors on profitability – this is especially true when there are three or more women on executive boards. Besides having a positive effect on the firm performance and the reduction of gender gaps (Ibid.), having more women on the board representation corresponds with firms engaging in more socially responsible practices, which as a result, is beneficial for society as a whole.[AS1]
If it’s so important to have women in leadership positions, why aren’t they already there?
The higher one looks in the corporate ladder, the fewer women there are. Some studies show that the greatest blockage to a woman reaching top leadership positions is not a glass ceiling, but instead a so-called “broken rung.” In other words, the disparity in leadership positions begins at the step to the first managerial position. The figure below, taken from McKinsey and LeanIn, illustrates the point. For every 100 male employees that are promoted to managerial positions, only 87 women received the same advancement. This disparity is even more pronounced for women of color and Black women, with only 73 and 54 respectively receiving the same promotion for every 100 men.
Figure 1 All women lose ground at the first step up to manager (Source: McKinsey, 2023, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace#/)
There is a large literature exploring reasons for the gender gap in promotion to leadership positions. Two issues in particular stand out.
Conscious and unconscious biases and stereotypes: Existing leaders very often prefer personality traits typically associated with masculinity when looking for the next leaders. In addition, women are often exposed to scrutiny at the workplace regarding issues that are unrelated to their work performance, such as their appearance. They face harsher assessments than their male counterparts (Ibid.). There is a very large literature showing bias against female employees; a famous and compelling example is that when musicians auditioning to play in an orchestra played from behind a curtain, women were more likely to be selected for the job than when the composers saw that they were women.
Social norms dictate that women “ought to” be caring and nurturing while men “ought to” be tough and competitive. These biases often lead to microaggressions, particularly against women (though many men face them too!). For instance, women receive fewer challenging assignments at work compared to men and have fewer opportunities to provide input on important decisions; when they do have the opportunity to participate in making decisions, they receive less credit for their contributions. Moreover, to fit in with social norms, women are more likely to adjust their appearance or how they act at work. The results: lowered confidence, lack of leadership mentality, and different decision-making, such as shying away from risk-taking.
How can we get more women into leadership positions?
Three approaches in particular have been found helpful in getting more women into leadership positions in business and at work.
First, mentoring and sponsorship can both play key roles when it comes to career advancement. Mentors can offer empowerment, cultivate confidence, and foster career success by sharing relatable experiences and guidance on navigating obstacles like the glass ceiling. Sponsors can be seen as advocates who help with career advancement through funding opportunities and network enhancement. Research suggests that women are less likely than men to use networks for professional gain, so sponsorship programs, which are explicitly aimed at career advancement, are more helpful for women. Implementing gender-diverse sponsorship programs including activities such as building close relationships with protégés, providing honest feedback, and directly building networks can positively impact the attraction and retention of female talent and career advancement. A caveat: primary caregivers (usually women) are often limited in their availability after standard work hours, when they go to their second (unpaid) shift of the day. As a result, they are less likely to participate in networking activities or spend extra time at the office, actions that are frequently perceived as desirable for career advancement.
Second, transparency and education about the gender gap in leadership plays a significant role in triggering the structural change necessary to support and promote women. Increasing female representation at the very top without simultaneously addressing the “broken rung” only offers a temporary solution.
Third, companies can benefit from unlocking the full potential of flexible work schedules, hybrid or remote work arrangements, and paid family leave for all. Normalizing men making use of flexible working arrangements or parental leave is a crucial step towards a shift in gender norms and thus a more equal environment for women’s career advancement.
Aldoory, L., 2007. The social construction of leadership and its implication for women in mass communication, In: Creedon, P.J. & Cramer, J. (Eds.). Woman in Mass Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 247-256, http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0363-8111(17)30290-4/sbref0005
Bundeskanzleramt, 2024. Frauen in politischen Entscheidungspositionen in Österreich 2023: Entwicklung der Repräsentation von Frauen zwischen 2013 und 2023, https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:eb1dbbb9-ef80-40a4-8a0c-dc3ff76b1fd1/frauen_in_polit_entscheidungspositionen_2023.pdf
Byron, K., Post, C., 2016. Women on Boards of Directors and Corporate Social Performance: A Meta Analysis, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4), 428-442, https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12165.
Bundeskanzleramt, 2024. Frauen in wirtschaftlichen Führungspositionen, https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/agenda/frauen-und-gleichstellung/gleichstellung-am-arbeitsmarkt/frauen-in-fuehrungs-und-entscheidungspositionen/frauen-in-wirtschaftlichen-fuehrungspositionen.html
Carli, L.L., 2006. Gender Issues in Workplace Groups: Effect of Gender and Communication Style on Social Influence, In: Barrett, M. (Ed.): Gender and Communication at Work, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Chisholm-Burns, M.A., Spivey, C.A., Hagemann, T., Josephson, M.A., 2017. Women in leadership and the bewildering glass ceiling, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 74(5), 312-324, https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp160930
Criado-Perez, C., 2019. Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. New York, NY: Abrams Press.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., van Engen, M.L., 2003. Transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men, Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591, https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569.
Flabbi, L., Macis, M., Moro, A., Schivardi, F., 2019. Do Female Executives Make a Difference? The Impact of Female Leadership on Gender Gaps and Firm Performance, The Economic Journal, 129(622), 2390-2423, https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/uez012.
Jiang, H., 2009. Gender, leadership, and teams: Examining female leadership in public relations from a new perspective, Conference Paper presented the International Communication Association annual conference, 1-32, http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0363-8111(17)30290-4/sbref0145
Jones, B.D., 2012. Women who opt out: The debate over working mothers and work-family balance, New York University Press.
McKinsey & Company, 2016. Women in the Workplace, https://wiw-report.s3.amazonaws.com/Women_in_the_Workplace_2016.pdf
McKinsey & Company, 2023. Women in the Workplace, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace#/
Mitchell, A.L., 2018. Woman-to-Woman Mentorship: Exploring the Components of Effective Mentoring Relationships to Promote and Increase Women’s Representation in Top Leadership Roles [University of La Verne], https://researchworks.laverne.edu/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Woman-to-Woman-Mentorship-Exploring-the-Components-of/991004155672806311
Pew Research Center, September 27th, 2024. The Data on Women Leaders, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/fact-sheet/the-data-on-women-leaders/
Place, K.R., Vardeman-Winter, J., 2018. Where are the women? An examination of research on women and leadership in public relations, Public Relations Review, 44, 165-173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.10.005
Schueller-Weidekamm, C. & Kautzky-Willer, A., 2012. Challenges of Work-Life Balance for Women Physicians/Mothers Working in Leadership Positions, Gender Medicine, 9(4), 244-250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genm.2012.04.002
Shaw, E., & Milli, J., 2021. Climbing the Career Ladder: Women’s Progress Stalls. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. https://iwpr.org/climbing-the-leadership-ladder-womens-progress-stalls/
The World Bank, 2024. Labor force, female (% of total labor force), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.FE.ZS
Underhill, C.M., 2006. The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 292-307, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.05.003
