Wo∼Men and Leadership: Re-Thinking the State of Research on Gender and Leadership Through Waves of Feminist Thinking

Gender Reform Feminism and Traditional/Heroic Leadership Theories

The historical “Great Man theory,” described by Thomas Carlyle in 1840 as “an assertion that certain individuals, certain men, are gifts from God placed on earth to provide the lightening needed to uplift human existence” (Spector, 2016, p. 250), focuses on inherent traits to distinguish non-leaders and leaders. This theory, centered on strong male figures, overlooked women and “feminine” characteristics. Similarly, the behavioral/style approaches from the 1940s replacing it, emphasizing leaders’ behaviors and effectiveness (Judge et al., 2004; Stogdill, 1950), often evolve around “masculine” behaviors, such as autocratic, charismatic, and transactional leadership.

Autocratic leadership, known for low follower consideration (De Cremer, 2006) and agentic behaviors (Hentschel et al., 2018), contrasts with stereotypical “feminine” styles like democratic or participative leadership (Lewin et al., 1939). A meta-analysis showed that men generally show more autocratic tendencies, while women lean towards democratic leadership, linked to higher follower satisfaction (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Foels et al., 2000). However, Hentschel et al. (2018) found no significant gender differences in autocratic leadership expectations.

Charismatic leadership, derived from the Greek for “gift” (House, 1976), is marked by extraordinary traits (Weber, 1947), “winner” qualities (Joosse & Willey, 2020), and significant impact on others (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1976). It parallels “hegemonic masculinity” concepts (Connell, 1987; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), often associated with male stereotypes like dominance and self-confidence. However, a recent meta-analysis shows women exhibiting more charismatic leadership (Banks et al., 2017), and training studies indicate women can develop charismatic behaviors as effectively as men (Niebuhr et al., 2019).

Transactional leadership, integral to the Full-Range Leadership theory, employs principles of positive or negative reinforcement (Bass, 1985). Its facets include contingent reward and active and passive management-by-exception, where leaders intervene upon performance deviations or wait until problems have occurred to become involved (Bass, 1985; Avolio et al., 1999). Meta-analyses reveal a small gender effect: women show more effective contingent reward behavior. Men more often use management-by-exception styles, linked to null or negative leadership impact (Eagly et al., 2003).

Destructive leadership also maps on this gender reform wave of feminism. Characterized by hostile behaviors (e.g., abusive supervision; Tepper, 2000) and other actions that harm the organization (Einarsen et al. 2007), destructive leadership encompasses various negative leadership styles (Fischer & Sitkin, 2023; Tierney & Tepper, 2007). Empirical evidence supports the adverse outcomes of such leadership (Krasikova et al., 2013; Pajic et al., 2021; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). One form of destructive leadership is narcissistic leadership. Narcissism, defined as a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy, is more prevalent among leaders, with higher representation in men, aligning with masculine stereotypes like anger, power need, and authoritative style (Corry et al., 2008, p. 593). According to a comprehensive meta-analysis, men score higher on narcissism across time and age groups, particularly on the facets of exploitative/entitlement and leadership/authority, and somewhat less on the grandiose/exhibitionism facet (Grijalva et al., 2015). Furthermore, men rated themselves higher on destructive leadership and Machiavellianism in comparison to women (Babiak & Bajcar, 2019) and were seen as higher on abusive leadership by followers (Kim, Harold & Holtz, 2022). Yet, although abusive leadership was seen as less typical among women, when they were seen as abusive it was associated with lower ratings of effectiveness in comparison to abusive men leaders (Kim et al., 2022).

Other leadership behaviors that also align with this wave of traditional/heroic leadership theories include instrumental leadership and task-oriented leadership. In Table 1, we present these leadership theories and the way they map onto feminist thought and the different waves.

Contribution and Critique of Gender Reform Feminism Leadership Perspective

Gender reform studies, reflecting a traditional leadership outlook, endorse heroic styles (e.g., management-by-exception, autocratic, charismatic, and narcissistic leadership) rooted in male-centric theories. These align with the “think manager—think male” concept (Schein, 1973, 1975), often disregarding gender to maintain the status quo and emphasize “heroic” traits and behaviors, advised historically by men researchers, and targeted towards men leaders (Fondas, 1997; Fletcher, 2004). This stream of research has focused on explaining gender disadvantages rather than overcoming them (Calás & Smircich, 2016), imposing masculine norms on women, who are expected to adapt (Billing & Alvesson, 2000). Despite the masculine orientation of these leadership styles, women have been rated as equally or more effective compared to men in these styles (Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Thus, the first wave of gender and accompanying theories treat gender as a mere variable, overlooking the systemic factors that perpetuate gender inequality (Alvesson & Billing, 1997; Ely & Padavic, 2007). They advocate for women to “lean in” and adopt “men’s ways of leading.” However, recent perspectives argue for systemic rather than individual transformation, highlighting the need to “fix the system” versus to “fix the women” (Kim et al., 2018), to achieve sustainable change and redefine leadership itself. This shift in thinking ushers in gender resistance feminism, focusing on women's unique perspectives and voices (Calás & Smircich, 2016; Lorber, 2001).

Gender Resistance Feminism and Post-Heroic Leadership Theories

Post-heroic leadership theories emphasize empowerment and relational aspects, suggesting a departure from traditionally masculine leadership (Billing & Alvesson, 2000; Fletcher, 2004). These theories define leadership as “a set of shared practices that can and should be enacted by people at all levels” (Fletcher, 2004, p. 648), viewing it as an egalitarian social interaction fostering collective development and learning, benefiting leaders, followers, organizations, and wider communities. Attributes like empathy and collaboration, often stereotypically ascribed to women (Fletcher, 1994, 2004), are central to post-heroic styles such as transformational and servant leadership. This view supports a “female advantage” narrative (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Kark et al., 2024a) for those embodying these leadership styles.

Transformational leadership is thought to augment transactional leadership by introducing new ways of influence (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Transformational leaders motivate employees through idealized goals, inspiration, role-modeling, individualized care, development of followers, and addressing followers’ higher needs (Bass, 1985). Meta-analytic studies confirmed its effectiveness (Hoch et al., 2018; Judge et al., 2004) and showed women display more transformational leadership in comparison to men (Eagly et al., 2003). This may be explained by women being especially talented to reach the same roles as men, or due to their socialization to be more developmental towards their followers (a major component of the transformational style). Although this style is stereotypically expected of women leaders, transformational men leaders receive a “communality bonus” contributing to higher promotability (Hentschel et al., 2018). Furthermore, showing a combination of both stereotypical “feminine” and “masculine” behaviors simultaneously was linked more strongly to transformational leadership ratings compared to either “femininity” or “masculinity” (Kark et al., 2012; Kark, 2004). However, although leaders’ stereotypical “feminine” behaviors were more strongly linked to leadership effectiveness perceptions than leaders’ “masculinity,” women were more harshly penalized for being perceived as not blending “feminine” and “masculine” behaviors (Kark et al., 2012, Zheng et al., 2018a). These findings somewhat contradict the assumption of a “female advantage.”

Servant leadership prioritizes followers’ needs and empowerment over leader-centric and organizational goals (Eva et al., 2019). It emphasizes interpersonal behaviors aimed at benefiting various stakeholders (Lemoine et al., 2019). Meta-analysis links it to job satisfaction, high leader-member-exchange (LMX), commitment, and trust (Hoch et al., 2018). Studies on gender and servant leadership are limited but point to higher expectations for women to demonstrate servant leadership (Barthel & Buengeler, 2023; Beck, 2014; Hogue, 2016). Women leaders employing this style increase performance, mediated through follower-servant behaviors (Lemoine & Blum, 2021). In terms of leaders’ own promotability, no advantage of women over men demonstrating servant leadership was found (Barthel & Buengeler, 2023).

Shared leadership, contrasting with hierarchical models, is a collective process where leadership influence is distributed among team members (Carson et al., 2007; Pearce & Sims Jr, 2002). Defined as “an emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members” (Carson et al., 2007, p. 1218), meta-analytic studies indicate its positive relation to team attitudes and effectiveness (Wang et al., 2014). Though potentially seen as egalitarian and stereotypically associated with women (Mendez & Busenbark, 2015), research in this area is sparse (Neubert & Taggar, 2004). Gender biases may also devalue women's contributions in informal team leadership (Neubert & Taggar, 2004), and men are often perceived as more influential in shared leadership contexts, challenging the notion of a “female advantage” (Mendez & Busenbark, 2015). Related theories, such as humble, collective, and dispersed leadership, may also align with this perspective.

Contribution and Critique of Gender Resistance Feminism Leadership Perspectives

The gender resistance feminism wave, focusing on communal leadership traits, suggests “feminine” characteristics align with effective leadership. However, it raises several concerns. First, valuing stereotypic “feminine” attributes may not lead to valuing women leaders, as men might receive extra benefits for communal behaviors (Billing & Alvesson, 2000; Kark et al., 2012). Second, women leaders are often expected to demonstrate communal behaviors and may be penalized for not doing so or for displaying traditional leadership styles (Billing & Alvesson, 2000). Third, suggesting a “female advantage” for certain “feminine” leadership styles may just reinforce binary gender stereotypes (Calás & Smircich, 1993; Kark et al., 2024a). Fourth, it oversimplifies the diverse realities of women, suggesting common “attributes” and a collective, homogenized “experience” for all women (Bell et al., 2019; Gillis et al., 2007; Kark, 2004), which can be viewed as an ethnocentric unification of women's behaviors and challenges (Alvesson & Billing, 1997; Mohanty, 1984). Lastly, gender resistance feminism may echo oppressive patriarchal conceptualizations of “femininity,” expecting women in leadership to conform to “feminine” behaviors. The celebration of “feminine” behaviors as a “female advantage” can inadvertently sustain the status quo (Ely & Meyerson, 2000).

Although the “female advantage” in leadership has been promoted by media and consultants, it's unclear if these celebrated post-heroic leadership forms are advantageous for women. Research shows relational leadership behaviors enhance effectiveness (Hoch et al., 2018; Judge et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2014), but this has not necessarily improved perceptions of women as leaders. Women leaders are often seen as lacking adequate “feminine” qualities compared to men (Kark et al., 2012), and their nurturing behaviors are acknowledged without linking them to women, thus overlooking women in these models (Fondas, 1997). Furthermore, women were seen as communal and “givers” due to their own self-centered needs and interests and their motherly approach, implying that there is no need to reciprocate or praise their contribution (Fondas, 1997; Fletcher, 2004; Kark et al., 2012). In contrast, men might receive a “communality advantage” for enacting typical feminine communal behaviors (Hentschel et al., 2018; Kark et al., 2012). Thus, this shift from traditional to post-heroic leadership theories might improve perceptions of women as leaders but still maintain a binary gender divide, reinforcing stereotypes and constraining women's leadership opportunities. These critiques led to the development of the gender rebellion perspective in feminist theory.

Gender Rebellion Feminism and Contemporary Leadership Theories

Through this lens, leadership research is encouraged to explore more nuanced theories that challenge the clear-cut division between women/men and female/male, questioning the traditional assignment of certain traits and behaviors to specific genders (Powell, 2012). Recent leadership theories are beginning to embrace this complexity.

Paradoxical leadership adopts a “both–and” perspective over “either–or” addressing leadership role tensions (Kark et al., 2012; Smith & Lewis, 2011; Zhang et al., 2015). Paradoxes are seen as coexisting contradictory elements that are interrelated and enduring, drawing from the Eastern Taoist “Yin and Yang” philosophy, where Yin represents “female” aspects (like the moon, water, passivity) and Yang “male” aspects (such as the sun, fire, activity). These energies are depicted as inseparable, each containing an element of the other, illustrating their interconnected nature (Fang, 2010). There is a growing body of literature on leadership and paradox, as well as gender and paradox, indicating that the most effective leadership integrates both agentic and communal behaviors, leading to enhanced work engagement and proactive behaviors (Fürstenberg et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2015). This integration offers more opportunities for women as paradoxical leaders, although it also implies a greater expectation for them to navigate these dualities (Zheng et al., 2018a, 2018b).

Inclusive leadership emphasizes behaviors that promote every employee's sense of belonging and authenticity, valuing their uniqueness and differences (Leroy et al. 2022; Shore et al., 2011). This leadership style transcends single diversity dimensions like gender, focusing on a broader spectrum (Buengeler et al., 2018; Leroy et al., 2022). Inclusive behaviors comprise actively seeking and appreciating diverse inputs and encouraging their use in discussions and decision-making (Homan et al., 2021; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Leroy et al. (2022) show that for leaders to reap diversity's benefits, they must also foster diversity-supportive mindsets and beliefs within their teams. Their research, through two field studies, demonstrated that leveraging team diversity (“harvesting”) is most favorably linked to team inclusion and creativity when accompanied by promoting pro-diversity mindsets and explaining harvesting's relevance (“cultivating”).

The impact of inclusive leadership on women and men leaders remains under-explored. While women leaders might be perceived as inherently more inclusive, expectations for men's inclusivity are also increasing with the growing emphasis on men's allyship for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Kelan (2020) found that in striving for gender equality, men are increasingly expected to be inclusive leaders. Significantly, inclusive leadership considers broader categories of diversity and intersectionality, aiming for the inclusion of all employees, not just those from advantaged or highlighted groups. Gooty et al. (2023) encourage making business schools more gender-inclusive for academic leaders to increase equality including for those with multiple intersecting minority identities.

Intersectionality theory, introduced by Crenshaw (1989), emphasizes the interconnectedness of various identity facets like ethnicity, race, social class, age, and gender or sexual orientation, contributing to unique oppression and privilege experiences. This approach is critical for understanding complex identity interactions and their impact on leadership (Bell et al., 2019; Calás & Smircich, 2016; Daldrop et al., 2023; Lorber, 2001; Mohanty, 1984). Research in intersectionality leadership, particularly at the nexus of gender and race, reveals nuanced stereotypes. Studies indicate that in North America, Black individuals are often associated with “masculinity,” affecting leadership perceptions regardless of their gender (Galinsky et al., 2013; Goff et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2012; Rosette et al., 2016; Schug et al., 2015), with Black women leaders facing less backlash for dominant behaviors compared to White women (Livingston et al., 2012). Conversely, Asians are perceived as more “feminine” across genders, encountering leadership barriers (“bamboo ceiling”) and criticism for displaying dominance (Galinsky et al., 2013; Rosette et al., 2016; Schug et al., 2015; Lu et al., 2020; Yu, 2020). Daldrop et al. (2023) explored how gender and youth intersect in leadership evaluations, revealing age biases that compound gender biases, particularly disadvantaging young leaders. This underscores the importance of considering multiple identity categories in leadership assessments.

The intersectionality lens also extends to sexual orientation in leadership studies, offering insights into leadership enactment and follower reactions within the LGBTQI + community (Barrantes & Eaton, 2018; Fasoli & Hegarty, 2020; Fassinger et al., 2010). Proposed models of LGBTQI + leadership encompass identity disclosure, gender orientation, and situational factors like group composition, stigma, and marginalization. Research in this area, often situated in academic settings, aims to understand grassroots leadership and social change efforts (Pryor, 2021; Renn & Bilodeau, 2005; Renn, 2007), suggesting broader applicability to various organizational contexts. This perspective might intersect with complexity theories of leadership (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), offering a richer understanding of leadership dynamics across diverse social landscapes.

Contribution and Critique of Gender Rebellion Feminism Leadership Perspectives

Rebellion feminist perspectives unmask the involvement of theorizing on leadership as part of the process of the construction of gendered relationships and arrangements (Acker, 1990; Kark, 2004) and advocate for integrating intersectionality theory to address multiple social identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, sexual orientation) influencing leadership dynamics (Fassinger et al., 2010; Jones, 2016; Liu, 2023). Although leadership and intersectionality research often draw from gender rebellion feminism, paradoxical leadership still leans on gender stereotypes, allowing for an androgynous coexistence of traits. This approach helps women leaders navigate agency and communion expectations (Zheng et al., 2018a, 2018b) but still does not pave the way for less conventional, less expected, less binary, imaginative, and complex leadership theorizing.

Despite the emphasis on the power of language in shaping realities, most leadership theories remain unchanged (Alvesson & Billing, 1997). This highlights the need to further develop the use of language in leadership theorizing and empirical research as a transformative tool. Recent leadership research aligned with gender rebellion feminism is still not widespread. Abdellatif et al. (2023) call to use various alternative research methods to give rise to marginalized voices in the study of leadership. The current methodological approaches are qualitative (e.g., Liu, 2019; Zheng et al., 2018a) and quantitative (e.g., Kearney et al., 2019; Rosette et al., 2016), but there is also a call to include less traditional critical feminist research methods they term as “methodologies of resistance,” such as narrative inquiry, testimonies, and autoethnography (Abdellatif et al., 2023). This serves to give rise to alternative voices and to the understanding of who is included, as well as what experiences are privileged and who is silenced (Rhodes & Brown, 2005) in leadership scholarship. In sum, there is still a need to change organizational gendered structures and their intersecting discrimination sources in further developing leadership theory and research.

Gender Digital/Clicktivism Feminism and Contemporary Leadership Theories

According to this lens leadership theorizing and research should consider more complex, and multiple, aspects of intersectionality in relation to embodied aspects of gender and leadership (with a focus on power relations and sexual violence) and on leadership and mobilization of employees via social media. So far, no leadership theories have attempted to address these topics or to use them aiming to re-think novel constructs and leadership theories in ways that can affect gender, using a feminist frame, or to re-invent leadership. Yet some research explores leadership in relation to technology, with connections to gender and intersectionality.

Virtual leadership research explores how leadership dynamics shift in digital environments, studying the effectiveness and accessibility of leadership roles online (Banks et al., 2022). It investigates how traditional leadership behaviors, like charisma, translate into virtual versus face-to-face contexts (Banks et al., 2022). Virtual leadership, also known as remote or e-leadership (Avolio et al., 2014), is characterized by using digital technologies for communication within virtual or hybrid teams, focusing more on the context of leadership rather than its style or substance (Efimov et al., 2022). As research on gender's impact on virtual leadership is sparse, little is known about gender-related differences in leadership emergence or outcomes in virtual settings (Ibáñez‐Sánchez et al., 2022; Yoo & Alavi, 2004).

This emerging field also examines how technologies like social media facilitate informal leadership roles, such as “influencers” in online communities, potentially broadening the scope of influence (Matthews et al., 2022). For instance, studies highlight the importance of community-focused and interpersonal communication in the emergence of online leaders, echoing the third wave of feminism's focus on language (Cassell et al., 2006). Research has shown that in online forums, boys and girls emerge as leaders equally, though girls may face penalties for dissent (Cassell et al., 2006). Additionally, formal leaders may use social media for signaling, framing, or networking, influencing leadership effectiveness (Matthews et al., 2022).

The integration of technology and AI in leadership roles, either as a replacement or for augmentation, prompts further investigation, especially concerning its implications for gender equality (Quaquebeke & Gerpott, 2023). The intersection of leadership, technology, and gender equality remains underexplored, necessitating more attention from a gendered and feminist perspective.

Contribution and Critique of Gender Digital/Clicktivism Feminism Perspectives

The advent of “clicktivism” or “hashtag” feminism is seen by some as a distinct wave of feminist thought diverging from earlier movements (e.g., Rivers 2017). Others view it as complementing the ongoing struggle for equality rather than replacing it (Andersen, 2018; Chamberlain 2017). This digital activism has broadened leadership avenues for women, facilitating feminist activism and giving voice to more technologically adept individuals, as well as those hindered by barriers such as childcare, disabilities, or age from participating in traditional activism (Day & Wray, 2018). This wave potentially fosters diverse leadership forms, challenging conventional stereotypes and encouraging intersectional leadership analysis, while questioning essentialist gender views.

Technology's role in reshaping leadership and gender notions could transition power dynamics from traditional patriarchal models to more inclusive, flat structures, amplifying diverse voices and leadership styles. The “call-out” culture enabled by social media allows women to share experiences, stepping beyond anonymity to gain collective recognition, solidarity, and leadership (Peroni & Rodak, 2020) as well as to shape the forms of current leadership, by highlighting what is needed and scrutinizing negative forms of leadership.

However, this new feminist lens necessitates critical examination. It risks commercializing feminism, potentially diluting its impact through neoliberal ideologies. The push for accessibility in feminism and leadership, while commendable, may oversimplify the movement, necessitating a balance with the use of earlier diverse feminist perspectives (Day & Wray, 2018). Emphasizing individual identities may detract from the collective action needed for systemic change. The attempt to empower individual women in various leadership practices and courses, advising them how to “lean-in” (Sandberg, 2013) and tackle gender inequality through internal changes of self-improvement, may curtail women's collective power (Kark et al., 2016, 2024b) and enhance the belief that if women are the solution to the problem, they are also likely to be the cause of it (Kim et al., 2018). Thus, “clicktivism” risks reducing feminism to personal achievements, potentially undermining collective power, and inadvertently suggesting women's complicity in gender issues rather than systemic flaws.

Critiques also address “slacktivism,” the perceived superficial engagement online that lacks tangible outcomes (Brandt & Kizer, 2019; Horeck, 2014; Jackson, 2018, Munro, 2013), described as “feel-good” campaigns with ample support but limited real-world impact (Munro, 2013). Additionally, focusing on personal and digital spaces might overlook the complexity of intersectionality, as technology does not eliminate, and may even reinforce, existing power hierarchies. Despite these challenges, digital platforms offer the potential for building solidarity across diverse women's groups, enhancing leadership representation and redefining leadership paradigms.

Women use this space collectively to form bonds among women (and men allies) from different backgrounds and identities and to expose their vulnerability in various topics (e.g., exclusion, experience of microaggressions, discrimination in promotion to leadership, pay gap; e.g., Kark et al., 2024b; Peroni & Rodak, 2020). This can help women gain power in organizations, in leadership positions and collectively change their representations and the ways we understand women's leadership. In addition, the impact of sexual violence on women's leadership motivation and its broader effects remains underexplored, calling for deeper analysis within the context of gender and clicktivism in leadership. Thus, a critical leadership perspective and analyses relating to gender clicktivism is still warranted.

Gender Reform Feminism Leadership Research

Articles consistent with gender reform feminism tend to highlight factors hindering women's emergence as leaders and strategies to overcome these disparities (e.g., Eva et al., 2021; Giacomin et al., 2022). For instance, adopting a life-span theoretical perspective, Offermann et al. (2020) uncover predictors of ascending to senior leadership roles of women and occupational success 28 years later. Women's orientations toward leadership and competition were most predictive of these later-life outcomes. Erkal et al. (2022) studied how to encourage women to overcome their lower tendency to apply for competitive leadership positions, even when being among the top-performing candidates. When women need to actively “opt out” of being considered for a leadership position (as compared to the default of having to “opt in” in leader selection procedures), this increases their participation in leadership selection procedures and leads to higher selection of women leaders.

Bhatia et al. (2022) offer a new automated method, computational modeling, to predict who will be perceived as effective leaders, and what attributes will be associated with them. In a dataset of more than 6000 globally known individuals then and now (e.g., Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt, Vladimir Putin), predictions of leadership ratings were lower for women than men, with this systematic gender bias in leadership ratings being robust even when accounting for alternative explanations such as arts as an industry which is associated with lower leadership rating predictions as well.

As part of a special issue on evolutionary approaches to leadership published in LQ (Van Vugt & von Rueden, 2020), Kocoglu and Mithani (2020) uncover a surprising type of backlash, related to their private life (outside of the organization) for senior women. They find that when CEOs’ romantic partners were facially attractive, men CEOs’ perceived leadership abilities were enhanced (due to signaling their unobservable leadership qualities with a good-looking woman as their partner) whereas evaluators rated women CEOs’ leadership more poorly and selected them less frequently for leadership positions when their romantic partners were good-looking. According to the authors, raters may see women CEOs with attractive male partners more as followers, while women with less attractive partners were seen as more dominant and competent, and thus more stereotypically leaderlike. This leads senior women to pay a price for their spouses and gives senior men a “spouse bonus.”

In the same special issue, Garfield and Hagen (2020) studied traits characterizing women and men leaders in a small-scale Ethiopian hunter-gatherer community using peer ratings and interviews, among others. Higher scores on mostly the same traits (e.g., prestige; respect; conflict resolution) predicted elected leadership status among women and men. Interestingly, for women being feared and having a reputation for fighting (both reflecting dominance) were not predictive of leadership. Highly rated women in the sample rather scored low on “feared” and “fighting.” Prestige mattered more than dominance, especially for women. The authors conclude that both women and men leaders play a significant role as leaders, mainly driven through the same traits (and in fact are oftentimes married), suggesting the need to revise evolutionary theories of leadership that still emphasize men leaders more than women leaders.

Gender Resistance Feminism Leadership Research

Consistent with notions of differences between women and men leaders, advanced in gender reform feminism, Tonidandel et al. (2022) used natural language processing to analyze reports of challenges by women and men leaders taking part in leadership development programs. Women reported more challenges in the communal and relational domain whereas men indicated more challenges in the agentic and task-oriented domain. Gendered stereotypes may have influenced the leadership challenges reported by the participants, giving rise to potentially differing leadership development outcomes and trajectories.

Blake et al. (2022) relied on a role congruity perspective (Eagly & Karau, 2002) to propose that women high in agreeableness are less likely to emerge as a leader, due to lower leadership attributions to these women. Given commonalities of agreeableness with communality/femininity stereotypically attributed to women, highly agreeable women should be assessed as having even more feminine attributes relative to males. In their meta-analysis, agreeableness positively predicted leader emergence aside from leader effectiveness but agreeableness was beneficial for leader emergence for women and for men. In a meta-analysis on leader humility and leadership outcomes, Chandler et al. (2022) studied possible differences in humble leadership outcomes for women as compared to men leaders, given stereotypical associations of a humble and moral stance with women. Overall, leader humility was positively associated with a wide range of beneficial leadership outcomes, regardless of the leader's gender. Hence, these studies further substantiate knowledge that stereotypically “feminine”-connoted leadership is effective. They also reveal that women and men profit equally, suggesting changes in beliefs and stereotypes toward women and men as well as leadership.

From a “female advantage” standpoint in line with gender resistance feminism, Eichenauer et al. (2022) revisited the role of communal versus agentic leadership behaviors in the context of crisis (see “think crisis, think female” paradigm; Ryan et al., 2011) particularly the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing from social role theory (i.e., the stereotype content model and role congruity theory), the authors argued that communal leadership behaviors—in comparison to agentic leader behavior—would be more expected in crisis, more predictive of leader likability and competence, and demonstrated more by women leaders than men leaders. While communal behavior generally mattered more to subordinates, there were no gender differences in the use of communal and agentic leader behaviors. However, women leaders’ competence evaluations (as compared to men leaders) were more directly linked to their demonstration of communal leader behavior, underlining the role of stereotypical expectations in leadership evaluations.

A possible “female advantage” has also been studied in relation to firm-level outcomes. For instance, Foss et al. (2022) argue and find a positive association between the presence of female managers and company-level innovation, particularly when gender quota in a country is voluntary or absent and when environmental uncertainty is higher. Under these conditions, the available unique capabilities and qualifications of women (e.g., multi-tasking, relational activities) should particularly benefit innovation. Anecdotal evidence also suggests companies led by women may fare better during global recessions. Shropshire et al. (2021) examine strategic risk-taking differences between women and men CEOs during economic downturns through survey, archival, and experimental research. The authors indeed find that women CEOs took less strategic risk (by engaging in less risky investments such as acquisitions) during a downturn economy as compared to no recession and as compared to men, and that other-orientation (considering the interests of others such as the organization) explains these differences in economic downtimes. Finally, making self- versus other orientations salient removes these differences in risk-taking between women and men, leading to more (self-orientation made salient) or less (other-orientation made salient) risk-taking.

Adopting an evolutionary angle to uncover conditions favoring female leadership, Smith et al. (2020) reviewed 76 non-human mammalian societies according to whether they display predominantly female leadership, characterized by females managing the collective behaviors of group members in at least two relevant contexts, such as group foraging, conflicts within groups, managing conflicts between groups, or collective movements. Contrasting it with male leadership, female leadership—which was only found in seven non-human mammalian societies (e.g., in killer whales, spotted hyenas, lions, elephants)—was found to be based on resources such as social support and/or ecological knowledge rather than coercion.

Gender Rebellion Feminism Leadership Research

In line with gender rebellion feminism, some theoretical focus has been put on demographic profiles and even intersectionality rather than gender alone. Stamper and McGowan (2022) extend the leadership labyrinth theory which replaced the metaphor of a glass ceiling and reflects the idea that women must get through a labyrinth to get into leadership positions. While no explicit predictions for different intersectionality profiles are made, higher degrees of non-traditionality as a leader (i.e., degrees of departure from being White and male) should be linked to more challenges on the way. More challenges yield a higher number of possible routes, also due to differences in whether and how these challenges are overcome. In contrast, traditional leaders who experience none or less of these hindrances on the way would more likely find themselves on one straightforward path.

Fitzsimmons and Callan (2020) clarify the interrelations and forces that perpetuate structures and regulate differential access to the capital required for leadership roles, thereby explaining an important source of the diversity gap in leadership. They apply Bourdieu's framework relating capital (micro level), habitus (meso level), and field (macro level), together with the concept of symbolic violence, on leadership development to shed light on why diverse groups (such as women or racial or sexual minorities) have less or no access to senior (or even any) leadership roles.

Connected to an increasing focus on paradoxical thinking in relation to leadership in the third wave of feminism, Cox et al. (2022) note the possibility of women emerging as leaders even in the face of existential threat, although men should be favored from an evolutionary perspective in their integrative review of emergent leadership research. Whereas in the COVID-19 pandemic, the medical experts per country were mostly (White) men, women seemed to emerge more as leaders of movements fighting the climate crisis. The authors contend that this is possibly due to them combining communal and agentic behavior (e.g., Greta Thunberg).

Research also reflects the third wave's focus on language as an implicit tool for constructing and reproducing the existing hierarchical status quo. Archer and Kam (2022) use experimental research to uncover the role of language in constructing gender and power in line with gender rebellion feminism. Implicitly sexist language contained in masculine-phrased job titles (e.g., “chairman”) strengthened assumptions that a hypothetical leader is a man rather than a woman. Thus, the results suggest that implicitly sexist language in relation to titles can strengthen ties between leadership and masculinity and weaken perceptions and expectations that women are leaders.

Another work focusing on language and attributed categories ascribed to men and women as shaping the way we view “reality,” is a study by Doldor et al. (2019) that applied automated topic modeling. They examined 1057 developmental feedback comments given to 146 men and women local political leaders in the UK, as part of a formal leadership development program. The feedback given was gendered across all feedback themes. Novel dimensions of gender bias beyond agency and communion emerged, as apparent in differential feedback received regarding strategic focus, politics and influence, and confidence. For instance, men leaders were more encouraged to develop and set a longer-term (and personal) strategy and vision, whereas women leaders were more encouraged to focus on operational excellence and shorter-term goals and vision attainment and delivery. Men leaders were also portrayed as and encouraged to be more proactive players of the political game, while women leaders were seen more in terms of shortcomings and defensiveness. The feedback also encouraged men leaders to display confidence more while women leaders were more encouraged to be confident.

Finally, MacLaren et al. (2020) found that speaking time predicts leader emergence in leader-less student groups performing a simulation, consistent with the “babble hypothesis” of leadership. Women are less likely than men to emerge as leaders due to being nominated less yet also indirectly, through less speaking time, further underlining the ample knowledge base on disadvantages for women to emerge as leaders.

Gender Digital/Clicktivism Feminism Leadership Research

Social media and public influence are important themes in the still nascent fourth wave of feminism. In a review of leader social media use, Matthews et al. (2022) summarize primary research that has looked at leaders’ social media use from the perspective of stable characteristics, including gender. For instance, in a study, Twitter data were used to detect grandiose narcissism (Gruda et al., 2021) which was then linked to fundraising success. The relationship was not significant, and gender did not moderate it. Even though pertinent research is still nascent, research revealed that women leaders were more likely to use Instagram compared to men leaders, and that many women entrepreneurs portrayed idealized “feminine” identities and qualities on Instagram, potentially reflective of stereotypical pressures.