Why do women remain under-represented in leadership roles, despite backgrounds, skills, and performances that are often comparable to those of men? This article dismantles five persistent misconceptions (ambition, decision-making, decision-making, stress management, strategy, innovation) using data from the assessment of personality and performance among senior managers. You will discover what the results show about real differences (or rather the absence of them), why stereotypes persist, and especially how to refocus Talent Management, Assessment & Development and Organizational Culture policies on structural barriers rather than “natural” explanations... rarely substantiated.
Why aren't there more women in leadership roles? A lot of ink has already been written on this issue. Often, articles focus on qualities that are supposed to be “inherent” in women that would prevent them from developing as leaders: we would not be “business” enough,1 we would be authoritarian, indecisive, too emotional, we would prefer to focus on the family, we would not be able to manage the pressure of leadership... The list seems endless.
What is striking is that these hypotheses suggest that the main obstacle is... being a woman. In other words, they suggest that so-called “feminine” characteristics create more barriers than, for example, existing power structures that favor men over people of other gender identities. However, many are keenly aware of it. Women are often subject to a disproportionate level of surveillance for their behaviors. To paraphrase the movie barbie (2023):
“[Women] should always be amazing, but one way or another, you're always wrong. [...] You have to be a boss, but you can't be mean. You have to lead, but you can't crush the ideas of others. You're supposed to love being a mom, but don't talk about your kids all the time. You need to be a career woman while always looking out for others.”
A long inventory of adjectives seems reserved for women: strident, domineering, domineering, authoritarian, soft, scattered, etc. Women are also less likely than men to receive concrete feedback on their performance4.
The reasons given for excluding women from leadership positions are both variable and contradictory, to the point of raising a question: are factors other than merit and ability at work? Thanks to the wealth of personality data collected by Hogan Assessments, it is possible to identify the factors that really influence performance.
Recent work conducted by the data science team at Hogan Assessments is examining several key myths about women's personalities and their progression into leadership positions. This research reviewed three large data sets totaling more than 25,000 senior executives globally, including personality scores, performance evaluations, and key competencies.
The aim was to:
Let's deconstruct these myths one by one.
The misconception here is that women would often lack momentum toward leadership positions, or that they would prioritize family at the expense of their careers. It is also assumed that ambition necessarily takes the form of competitiveness or toughness, while it can also be translated into long-term investment, the ability to influence, or the construction of alliances at work. Leadership styles that are perceived as “masculine” are often considered to be the norm, and therefore the “right” way to lead.
This myth has been tested via the ladder Ambition ofthe Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), which measures individual initiative, competitiveness, and the desire to hold leadership positions. Data shows that men and women in leadership roles are just as ambitious, and that these scores ofAmbition Predict performance equivalently for both genders.
Risk taking is often associated with dramatic decisions. However, a strategic decision also involves evaluating scenarios and thinking about the consequences — which is not synonymous with risk aversion.
This research measured decision making and risk aversion with the scales Careful (Cautious) and Devoted (Dutiful) of Hogan Development Survey (HDS) — of derailleur likely to appear under pressure. High scores on Careful indicate a tendency to risk aversion, excessive caution, and a fear of failure. High scores on Devoted may reflect a desire to please, up to and including deference and flattery. These dimensions can signal difficulty deciding or taking risks at work.
Even though indecision can hold back any leader, the scores of men and women don't show no significant difference.
This myth is based on stereotypes that women lack emotional stability and stress tolerance to deal with high-pressure situations.
Research has observed resilience to stress based on a set of indicators:
Again, stress management is an important predictor of leadership success — and neither men nor women present no significant differences on these measures.
Strategic thinking is central to leadership roles: giving direction, influencing, aligning efforts toward long-term goals. This myth suggests that women would be seen as more “tactical” or “operational,” while men would be more “strategic.”
To test this idea, the research evaluated the strategic dimension via:
The results indicate, once again, no significant difference strategic capabilities between men and women.
Like strategic management, innovation is a key performance indicator in leadership. Innovating means understanding the environment, identifying opportunities, and changing the status quo. Innovation is often associated with disruption and novelty, but it can also take the form of progressive, constant, and profoundly transformative improvements.
To measure this, the research relied on:
Again, the data does not show no significant difference between men and women.
For those who talk about personality on a daily basis, these results are not surprising. They point out that individual differences should not be extrapolated to entire groups. So what is the extent of the observation that the personality characteristics of successful leaders do not differ between men and women? And what are, in concrete terms, the obstacles that hinder women's access to leadership positions?
First, it is essential to question our representations of the “ideal” leader. The data from this research suggests that the perceived differences between male and female leaders are culturally assigned, and not intrinsic.
According to Hogan, it is useful to distinguish The emergence leadership and Effectiveness in leadership.5
Confusing the two is a mistake — and the data indicates that women can be just as effective only men.
Second, these results are valuable in countering deleterious stereotypes about women in leadership. Stereotypes are internalized,6 The more a woman hears that her gender is “less successful,” the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The threat of stereotyping is a very real phenomenon.7
Given the amount of mainstream articles explaining what characteristics “keep” women from moving forward, it's no wonder these beliefs are tenacious. When robust data goes against widely held stereotypes, it's important to highlight them.
In fact, a growing body of research suggests that women outperform men in certain areas, such as emotional stability,,8 despite opposing perceptions.9 These factors raise questions about whether certain leadership skills are developed precisely... in response to the increased level of surveillance to which women are exposed. After all, evolving under constant observation requires a certain degree of self-awareness.
Finally — and this is probably the most important point — correcting these preconceived ideas allows us to focus on real obstacles that hold women back. These barriers are multiple, and intersectionality adds even more complexity.
Shifting the conversation to structural barriers and systemic inequalities is much more likely to change the tide than circular debates about how women “would never do the right thing.” Current political discussions around merit and “merit-based” recruitment should be based on objective data that can truly identify the most qualified candidates.
Looking beyond stereotypes allows assessment & development, HR strategy and Talent Management practices to be refocused on what really matters: leadership qualities that contribute to sustainable performance, organizational culture and long-term success.
This article recalls a simple but structuring idea: when looking at solid data from the assessment of personality, performance and skills, the myths that would explain the under-representation of women by “natural differences” do not hold up.
The strategic challenge for organizations is therefore not to “correct” women, but to question the mechanisms that shape access to roles, the recognition of leadership potential, the quality of feedback, and the implicit selection criteria. By aligning Talent Management, coaching & coaching and skills development decisions with objective data (rather than stereotypes), companies reinforce not only equity, but also sustainable performance, team transformation and the solidity of their organizational culture.
At Authentic Talent, we believe that the provision of objective devices to support the processes of global individual and collective awareness within organizations is a major element for their future success. If you want to discuss the subject with us, Let's talk !
This article is based on the article written by Allisson Howell and published on the Hogan Assessments website: Why aren't more women in leadership roles?
