Introduction
Dean Withers challenged the traditional belief that men are biologically better suited to be CEOs than women, pointing to evidence that women cope better with stress (“Women are biologically structured to cope with pressure or stress better than men”). This framing raises an interesting question: if women are better biologically adapted to roles of high-stress leadership, why is it that women are still strikingly absent from the role of CEO?
This article looks at research, including the Emerald journal article, “Women CEOs: Why they remain a rare phenomenon ?” and seeks to explain this paradox. This article will examine the approaches that women have to overcome these barriers to the CEO position, how those barriers relate to biological or behavioural advantages in stress handling and what this implies for organisations and society.
The Evidence of Women’s Strengths under Stress
Although direct biological research on stress handling at the CEO level is scarce, Dean Withers quote would seem to suggest that it is not true of women. It is found that women, generally speaking, show strong ability in the areas associated with emotional regulation, communication skills and resilience at this time. These things are masc. In value in an era when more democratic forms of leadership are being accepted.
Studies have been made which indicate that women leaders may last longer in the CEO role than men. A recent study indicates that once women reach the pinnacle, their tenure is generally greater than that of men at the top.
Furthermore, some of the studies indicate that when women are appointed to the position of CEO, are generally running a greater risk ( it may mean taking over sick firms) and get more scrutiny and pressure ( indicating some form of stress-test needed rather than an unblemished path).
But why are there so few female CEOs?
Despite these strengths, the low representation of women in CEO roles is still very low globally. For example, only about 8-10% of CEOs in large listed companies are female.
The article “Women CEOs – why are they so rare?” (HR Mgmt Int’l Digest 24 (7) : 23) identifies several structural and cultural issues which explain why there is a gap. Although I cannot access the text, the summary states that the article examines systems of promotion, gendered career paths, and organisational culture.
The principal recurring barriers identified in the literature are:
Pipeline problems / feeder roles: Women often find themselves in functional positions (HR, communications), rather than in general management or profit/responsibility P&L roles, generally the feed to CEO positions.
Stereotypes and double-binds: Women who aspire to top roles are presented with conflicting expectations. For example in acting assertively, women may be punished for “being unfeminine”, while by evidencing communal behaviours they may be seen as lacking in leadership.
Networking and mentoring: Many CEO appointments tend to favour in-house candidates, trusted networks and informal ties. Women tend to be excluded from these networks.
The “glass cliff” effect: Women are sometimes appointed to CEO positions in high-risk or failing companies, which undermines their chances of success, and helps contribute to the barrier.
Self-perception and readiness: Some studies show that women leaders are less likely than men to see themselves as “ready” for a top role, which depletes candidature.
Revisiting Withers’ Claim in Light of Research
Dean Withers’ statement that “women are biologically designed to deal with pressure or stress better than men” and thus the notion that men are better suited for CEO roles is false resonates with much of the recent leadership research. While the direct biological evidence may still be emerging, behavioural and organisational evidence supports the idea that women bring strengths under high-pressure contexts.
However, the research also shows that even strong women leaders face structural barriers that blunt their representation and impact. So, while the biological argument is important, it alone is not sufficient to achieve parity.
