She Leads: What Psychology Reveals About Women and Power

The Science Behind Women’s Superior Leadership: Breaking Biases and Embracing Effectiveness

In this episode of PsyberSpace, host Leslie Poston explores the compelling evidence showing that women tend to be better leaders than men. The discussion includes statistics indicating that countries led by women have fewer conflicts and better crisis management. It digs into decades of research from organizational psychology, showing women outscore men in key leadership competencies such as empathy, resilience, and emotional intelligence. Neuroscientific studies highlight differences in how male and female brains process stress, favoring collaborative and adaptive behavior in women. Despite this overwhelming evidence, gender biases and cultural stereotypes persist, preventing the recognition of women’s effectiveness in leadership roles. The episode calls for systemic changes in defining leadership, promoting qualified women, and addressing unconscious bias to improve organizational and societal success.

00:00 Introduction: Women in Leadership
00:30 Global Leadership Landscape
01:23 Exploring Leadership Competencies
03:47 Neuroscience of Crisis Management
06:26 Empathy and Emotional Intelligence
09:13 Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership
13:46 Psychological Barriers and Bias
19:22 Intersectionality in Leadership
20:43 Effective Leadership Strategies
23:59 Challenges of Traditional Masculine Norms
27:33 Redefining Leadership Effectiveness
31:24 Conclusion: The Path Forward

Research

Araujo, E. B., Araujo, N. M. M., Moreira, A. A., Herrmann, H. J., & Andrade Jr., J. S. (2016). Gender differences in scientific collaborations: Women are more egalitarian. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05937. 

Capraro, V. (2018). Women are slightly more cooperative than men in one-shot prisoner’s dilemma games. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.08046. 

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. 

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. 

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.

Hopkins, M. M., O'Neil, D. A., Bilimoria, D., & Broadfoot, A. (2021). Buried treasure: Contradictions in the perception and reality of women's leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 684705. 

Hurlburt, R. T., Koch, M., & Heavey, C. L. (2002). Descriptive experience sampling demonstrates the connection of thinking to externally observable behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(1), 117–134.

Kelan, E. K., & Wang, M. (2013). The gender quota and female leadership: Effects of the Norwegian gender quota on board chairs and CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 449–466. 

Field, E., Krivkovich, A., McConnell, M., Yee, L. & Smith, H. (2024) Women in the Workplace 2024: The 10th‑anniversary report. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace#/

Novotney, A. (2024) Women leaders make work better. Here's the science behind how to promote them. American Psychological Association. (Blog) Retrieved from: https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/female-leaders-make-work-better

Paustian-Underdahl, S.C., Smith Sockbeson, C.E., Hall, A.V. & Saldanha Halliday, C. (2024) Gender and Evaluations of Leadership Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review of 50 Years of Research. The Leadership Quarterly. Vol. 35, Iss 6

Pew Research Center. (2008, August 25). Men or women: Who's the better leader?. 

Raval, A. (2024) Too many women excel at their jobs but are ignored for top roles. (Article) The Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/729d1a32-62bf-4d61-b3e3-0763b7fe93ca

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81–90. 

Xu, H., Strassmann, J. E., & Saar-Tsechansky, M. (2024). How high-status women promote repeated collaboration among women in male-dominated contexts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03474. 

Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2019, June 25). Research: Women score higher than men in most leadership skills. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-women-score-higher-than-men-in-most-leadership-skills

Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2020, December 30). Research: Women are better leaders during a crisis. Harvard Business Review. .css-j9qmi7{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;font-weight:700;margin-bottom:1rem;margin-top:2.8rem;width:100%;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:start;justify-content:start;padding-left:5rem;}@media only screen and (max-width: 599px){.css-j9qmi7{padding-left:0;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;}}.css-j9qmi7 svg{fill:#27292D;}.css-j9qmi7 .eagfbvw0{-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;color:#27292D;}

Episode Transcript

Leslie Poston (00:12):
Welcome to PsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. Today, we'retalking about something science
has shown us again and again.Women tend to make better
leaders than men. So why doesn'tthe world seem to believe it?
Let's start with a simple fact.As of 2025, 28 countries are led

(00:34):
by women. Not one of them is atwar or threatening its
neighbors. Many of them,including Mexico under Claudia
Scheinbaum, are improving inpublic trust, economic outlook,
and political stability.Meanwhile, male led countries
account for every single activearmed conflict on Earth.

(00:56):
And yet when people are asked,who makes a better leader? They
still mostly pick men. Despitedecades of research, despite
clear data, despite livedexperience, a deeply rooted bias
persists. Today on cyberspace,we're exploring the psychology
behind that. Why women tend tolead more effectively, and so

(01:19):
many people still won't admitit.
Let's start with some data, andthere's a lot of it, especially
from the world of organizationalpsychology. One comprehensive
Harvard Business Review studyfound that women outscored men
in 17 of 19 leadershipcompetencies. Those included

(01:40):
integrity, resilience, emotionalintelligence, teamwork, and
decisiveness. Women wereconsistently rated more
effective by their colleagues,their employees, and their
superiors across multipleevaluation metrics. The research
isn't limited to corporatepublications.
The American PsychologicalAssociation has documented that

(02:02):
women leaders foster healthierworkplace cultures, prioritize
employee well-being, and createhigher engagement among teams.
Organizations with women inleadership organizations with
women in leadership positionsshow measurably better
performance across keyindicators, including
profitability, employeesatisfaction, and retention

(02:24):
rates. A Florida StateUniversity study revealed that
women are significantly morelikely to exhibit
transformational leadershipbehaviors, the kind of
leadership that inspires andmotivates rather than simply
commanding compliance.Transformational leadership is
strongly linked to innovation,long term organizational

(02:46):
success, and sustainableperformance improvements. What
makes the data so interesting isits consistency.
Meta analyses examining decadesof leadership research across
industries, cultures, andorganizational types show the
same pattern repeatedly. This isnot cherry picked data or
isolated findings. It's robust,replicated research from

(03:10):
multiple independent sources,all pointing in the same
direction. The psychologicalimplications here are profound.
When we see such consistentresults across different
contexts and measurementapproaches, it suggests we're
looking at fundamentaldifferences in how leadership
behaviors manifest and impactoutcomes.

(03:32):
The question then becomes notwhether women lead more
effectively, but why thiseffectiveness persists across
such diverse settings and whatpsychological mechanisms drive
these differences. During COVIDnineteen, the contrast and
leadership effectiveness becameimpossible to ignore. Research

(03:55):
specifically examining pandemicresponses found that countries
led by women consistentlydemonstrated more effective
crisis management acrossmultiple measures. These leaders
showed superior communicationstrategies, more transparent
decision making processes, andbetter coordination of public
health responses. What makes itpsychologically interesting is

(04:19):
that the advantage wasn't justabout policy choices.
It reflects fundamentaldifferences in how different
brains process threat anduncertainty. Neuroscientific
research reveals that male andfemale brains activate different
neural networks when confrontingcrisis situations. When faced

(04:39):
with acute stress, the malebrains typically showed
increased activation in areasassociated with fight or flight
responses. Regions linked toquick decisive action, but also
to tunnel vision and reducedconsideration of alternatives.
The female brains, by contrast,showed heightened activity in

(04:59):
areas associated with socialcognition, collaborative problem
solving, and what research werecalling tend and befriend
responses.
This neurological differencetranslates directly into
leadership behaviors during acrisis. Women leaders are more
likely to seek diverse input,build coalitions, and maintain

(05:20):
open communication channels,exactly the behaviors that
crisis management researchidentifies as most effective for
navigating complex uncertainsituations. The psychological
concept of cognitive flexibilityis so important here. Crisis
situations require leaders torapidly process new information,

(05:43):
adjust strategies, andcoordinate complex responses.
The neural networks that aremore active in the female brains
that were examined during stressare precisely those that support
cognitive flexibility andadaptive thinking.
Think about what this means fororganizational resilience. When
a crisis hits, you want leaderswhose brains are wired to gather

(06:06):
information, build alliances,and adapt strategies based on
changing circumstances. Theneurological architecture that
evolution has seemingly shapedin female brains based on this
analysis provides exactly thesecapabilities. Empathy isn't just

(06:28):
a soft skill. It's asophisticated cognitive ability
with measurable impacts onleadership effectiveness.
Research consistently shows thatwomen score significantly higher
on empathy measures compared tomen. But the psychological
mechanisms behind this advantagereveal why empathy is so
critical for modern leadership.Neuroimaging studies demonstrate

(06:52):
that empathy activates mirrorneuron systems, allowing leaders
to literally understand andpredict their employees'
experiences and reactions. Thiscreates theory of mind, the
ability to understand thatothers have beliefs, desires,
and intentions that aredifferent from our own. Leaders
with stronger theory of mindcapabilities are measurably more

(07:15):
effective at motivation,conflict resolution, and team
coordination.
But empathy's leadership valuegoes deeper than just individual
interactions. It enables what wecall emotional contagion, the
ability to influence theemotional climate of entire
organizations. Leaders who canaccurately read and respond to

(07:37):
emotional states createpsychological environments that
either enhance or undermineperformance across their entire
sphere of influence. The conceptof psychological safety becomes
central here. Psychologicalsafety is the shared belief that
team members can express ideas,concerns, and mistakes without

(07:58):
fear of punishment orhumiliation.
Research shows us thatpsychological safety is one of
the strongest predictors of teamperformance, innovation, and
learning. We've talked aboutthat on a couple of podcasts
now, so you can go back, listento one of those, and learn more
deeply about that concept. Womenleaders' superior empathy skills

(08:18):
naturally create conditions thatpromote psychological safety.
They're more likely to noticewhen team members are
struggling, to recognizeunspoken concerns, and to
respond in ways that validaterather than threaten. And this
isn't just being nice.
It's leveraging sophisticatedemotional intelligence to
optimize group performance. Theneurological basis for this

(08:41):
advantage lies in brain regionslike the anterior cingulate
cortex and insula, which aretypically larger and more active
in women. These areas arecritical for processing
emotional information, detectingsocial conflicts, and generating
appropriate responses to others'emotional states. When these
systems function moreeffectively, leaders can

(09:04):
navigate the complexinterpersonal dynamics that
determine whether teams thriveor merely survive. Traditional
leadership models, often shapedby military hierarchies and
industrial age thinking, favortransactional leadership
approaches.
These involve clear chains ofcommand, usually top down,

(09:27):
directive communication, andreward punishment systems. But
decades of organizationalpsychology research reveals why
these approaches areincreasingly ineffective in
modern work environments. Ourhuman brain has evolved
sophisticated threat detectionsystems that constantly scan for
potential dangers. Authoritarianleadership style activate these

(09:51):
threat detection networks,flooding employees' brains with
stress hormones like cortisol.When people feel threatened or
controlled, their brains shiftresources away from higher order
thinking, like creativity,problem solving, and innovation,
and down toward basic survivalfunctions.
Women leaders are significantlymore likely to adopt

(10:14):
transformational leadershipstyles. Instead of commanding
compliance, they inspireengagement. Instead of
controlling through fear, theymotivate through purpose and
connection. This activatescompletely different neural
pathways and followers,specifically reward and
motivation systems that promotecreative thinking and intrinsic

(10:37):
motivation. The psychologicalmechanism here involves what
Albert Bandura called collectiveefficacy, a group's shared
belief in its capability toorganize and execute actions
required to produce givenattainments.
When leaders share power,solicit input, and distribute
credit, they strengthen theentire team's confidence and

(10:59):
competence. This creates anupward spiral where success
breeds more success, and teammembers become increasingly
capable and motivated. Butthere's an even deeper
psychological principle at work.Collaborative leadership
activates shared mental models,synchronized understanding of

(11:19):
goals, processes, andexpectations. When team members
develop shared mental models,they can coordinate more
effectively, anticipate eachother's needs, and respond to
challenges with a unifiedpurpose.
Brain imaging studies of highlycollaborative teams revealed
something really interesting.They develop similar neural

(11:41):
firing patterns during problemsolving tasks. They literally
begin to think together moreeffectively. So not group think,
like you might get in acorporate brainstorming session,
but actually better thinking.But there's an even deeper
psychological principle at work.

(12:01):
Collaborative leadershipactivates what we call shared
mental models, synchronizedunderstanding of goals,
processes, and expectations.When team members develop shared
mental models, they cancoordinate more effectively,
anticipate each other's needs,and respond to challenges with a
unified purpose. Brain imagingstudies of highly collaborative

(12:25):
teams reveal something reallyremarkable. They develop similar
neural firing patterns duringproblem solving tasks. They
literally begin to thinktogether more effectively, not
groupthink where everyone isgoing to the lowest common
denominator and acquiescing tothe same bad idea, but kind of a

(12:47):
synchronized cognition thatallows them to process
information faster, generatemore creative solutions leaning
on each of their individualstrengths but as a group, and
implement changes more smoothly.
Women's natural inclinationtoward collaborative approaches
isn't just a stylisticpreference. It's an instinctive

(13:07):
understanding of how to optimizegroup cognitive resources. By
creating psychologicalconditions that allow everyone's
best thinking to emerge, theymultiply the intellectual
capacity available to addresschallenges. And don't get it
twisted. We are not saying thatall women and all men are a
monolith.

(13:28):
We understand that there areinstances, however rare, where a
woman is not a good leader. Wealso understand that there are
instances where you might have areally great leader that's a
man. We've all experienced that.Despite overwhelming evidence,

(13:48):
public perception surveysconsistently show that people
still associate leadership withtraditionally masculine traits.
This is not just a stubbornopinion.
It's psychology working againstreality through several well
documented cognitive mechanisms.Our brains rely heavily on what
we call schemas mentalframeworks that help us process

(14:12):
information quickly andefficiently. These schemas
develop early in life and becomedeeply embedded in our neural
architecture. The leadershipschema that most people carry
was given to us early in life,and it was formed likely during
a period when physical dominanceand aggressive competition was

(14:34):
thought to determine oursurvival and group hierarchy.
Even though modern leadershiprequires entirely different
capabilities, emotionalintelligence, collaborative
problem solving, systemsthinking, our brains still
trigger recognition and comfortwhen we encounter leaders who
match ancient templates.
When we encounter leaders whomatch those dominance templates,

(14:57):
Height, deep voice, physicalpresence, dominant body
language, these all activate ourleadership schemas that we were
taught and some that wereinherited through epigenetics,
even when these traits have nocorrelation with actual
leadership effectiveness. Systemjustification theory provides
another layer of psychologicalexplanation. This theory

(15:19):
demonstrates that humans aremotivated to defend and
rationalize existing socialsystems, even when those systems
disadvantage them. When womenare underrepresented in
leadership positions, ourpsychological systems work to
justify this disparity byunconsciously seeking evidence
that it's appropriate ornatural. The cognitive process

(15:40):
for that works a little likethis.
If the current system has fewerwomen leaders, our brains assume
that there must be a good reasonfor the pattern. We then become
more likely to notice instanceswhere women leaders to notice
instances where women leadershave failed and less likely to
notice instances where they havesucceeded. We interpret

(16:02):
identical behaviors differentlybased on gender, seen
assertiveness in men as astrength, and the same behavior
in women as aggression. This isamplified if the woman happens
to be a black woman or fromanother minority group. This
creates what we call a doublebind, a psychological trap where

(16:23):
women face criticism regardlessof how they behave.
If they display traditionallyfeminine traits, they're seen as
too soft for leadership. If theydisplay traditionally masculine
traits, they're criticized forbeing unlikable or
inappropriate. Men rarely facethis contradiction because
masculine traits align withtraditional leadership schemas.

(16:46):
The double bind creates enormouspsychological pressure on women
leaders and contributes tostereotype threat, the fear that
one's behavior might confirmnegative stereotypes about their
group. This fear can actuallyimpair your performance,
creating a self fulfillingprophecy that reinforces the

(17:06):
original bias.
Brain imaging studies haverevealed that when people
observe women in authoritypositions, the brains that are
being scanned have shownincreased activation in areas
associated with rule violationand social conflict. This
happens unconsciously, evenamong people who consciously
support gender equality. Ourneural architecture is literally

(17:29):
working against our consciousvalues. When organizations
undervalue women leaders, theydon't just create unfairness,
they systematically underminetheir own performance through
what economists call efficiencylosses. The psychological
mechanisms behind these lossesreveal why gender bias is

(17:51):
ultimately self defeating forany organization or society.
Research on cognitive diversityshows us that homogenous
leadership teams fall prey togroupthink, the tendency to seek
harmony by avoiding dissent andfailing to critically analyze
alternatives. When leadershipteams lack gender diversity,
they miss critical perspectivesand make systematically worse

(18:15):
decisions. The psychologicalprocess has several mechanisms
on this. First, similarbackgrounds and experiences
create similar blind spots.Leaders who share demographics
tend to share assumptions,biases, and thinking patterns.
This similarity feelscomfortable and reduces
conflict, but it also reducesthe cognitive resources

(18:36):
available for problem solving.Next, homogenous groups develop
confirmation bias amplification.When everyone thinks similarly,
the group becomes increasinglyconfident in its assumptions and
less likely to seekdisconfirming evidence. And this
leads to overconfident decisionmaking and inadequate risk

(18:58):
assessment. A woman's presencein leadership activates
constructive dissent, healthyquestioning of assumptions and
exploration of alternatives.
Research tracking businessdecisions over time shows that
gender diverse leadership teamsspend more time analyzing
problems, they consider morealternatives, and they make

(19:19):
fewer catastrophic errors. Thepsychological concept of
intersectionality becomes morecrucial when we consider black
women in leadership. Blackindigenous and Latino women face
what we call intersectionalinvisibility. They're
experiencing both racial andgender bias simultaneously,

(19:40):
creating unique psychologicalpressures and barriers. When
organizations fail to recognizeand address these compound
effects, they lose access toperspectives that could provide
even greater cognitivediversity.
The stress of navigating biashas measurable physiological
effects. Women leaders, andparticularly black women

(20:01):
leaders, show elevated cortisollevels and other stress markers
that impact both health andperformance. This is creating a
vicious cycle where bias impairsperformance, which then gets
used to justify continued bias.From an organizational
psychology lens, when qualifiedpeople are consistently

(20:22):
overlooked or undervalued, it'screating what is called
psychological contract violationthroughout the culture.
Employees observe that meritisn't fairly rewarded, leading
to decreased engagement, reducedinnovation, and higher turnover
among even the most talentedindividuals.
Looking at current women leadersthrough a psychological lens

(20:47):
reveals consistent patterns thatilluminate why their leadership
styles are so effective. ClaudiaScheinbaum in Mexico exemplifies
what we call evidence basedleadership, making decisions
based on systematic analysisrather than intuition, ideology,
or political pressure. A climatescientist by training,

(21:08):
Scheinbaum approaches policychallenges through scientific
thinking, forming hypotheses,gathering data, testing
assumptions, and adjustingstrategy based on results. This
cognitive approach reduces theemotional reactivity and ego
driven decision making thatoften plague political
leadership. Her communicationstyle demonstrates what we call

(21:30):
transformational communication.
She inspires change throughvision and emotional connection
rather than through fear ormanipulation. Transformational
leaders help followers transcendtheir immediate self interest
for the sake of larger purposes,creating psychological
conditions that promote bothindividual growth and collective

(21:51):
achievement. In Denmark, MetaFredriksen exemplifies inclusive
leadership. Her style activelyseeks diverse perspectives and
creates psychological safety fordissenting voices. Inclusive
leaders understand that theirown cognitive limitations
require input from others, andso they create systems that

(22:12):
encourage honest feedback evenif it challenges their
assumptions.
The psychological principle atwork here is intellectual
humility, the recognition thatone's knowledge is limited and
that learning requires opennessto being wrong. Leaders high in
intellectual humility makebetter decisions because they
gather more information andremain more responsive to

(22:35):
changing circumstances. Barbadosprime minister Miyamatli
demonstrates moral courage, thewillingness to take stands based
on principle rather thanconvenience. Her climate
advocacy illustrates howtransformational leaders can
influence global conversationsdespite leading a small nation.

(22:55):
The psychological mechanism sheuses is moral elevation, the
capacity to inspire others tohigher standards of behavior.
When we analyze the approachesof all 28 current women heads of
state, several psychologicalpatterns emerge. They tend to
exhibit higher levels ofemotional regulation,

(23:16):
maintaining calm and focuseddecision making even under
pressure. They demonstratesuperior social intelligence,
building coalitions, andmanaging relationships across
diverse stakeholder groups. Theyshow greater future orientation,
considering long termconsequences rather than just
immediate political or financialgains. Perhaps most

(23:38):
significantly, none of theseleaders are currently engaged in
military aggression againsttheir neighbors.
This isn't coincidence. Itreflects psychological
tendencies toward collaborationover domination, problem solving
over conflict escalation, andrelationship maintenance over
relationship destruction.Understanding why certain

(24:01):
expressions of masculinitycreate leadership problems
requires examining thepsychological mechanisms
involved. Traditional masculinenorms, such as emotional
suppression, dominance,hypercompetitiveness, and
extreme independence, activatedestructive leadership patterns.
When leaders suppress emotions,they literally impair their own

(24:24):
decision making capacity.
Neuroscience researchdemonstrates that cognition and
emotion are integrated systemsof the brain. The areas
responsible for rationalthinking are extensively
connected to the areas thatprocess emotional information.
Leaders who pride themselves onbeing purely rational are

(24:46):
actually operating withcompromised neural function. The
psychological concept ofalexithymia, difficulty
identifying and expressingemotions, becomes relevant here.
Leaders high in alexithymia canstruggle to read social
situations, to understandstakeholder concerns, and to

(25:06):
respond appropriately tointerpersonal dynamics.
They may appear strong anddecisive, but they're actually
operating with reduced access tocrucial information about the
human elements of leadership.Dominance based leadership
triggers reactance in followers,the motivation to restore
freedom when it feelsthreatened. When people feel

(25:28):
controlled or coerced, theyoften respond with resistance,
reduced performance,psychological withdrawal.
Organizations led by highlydominant leaders typically show
lower engagement, higherturnover, and more workplace
conflict. The psychology ofhypercompetitive masculinity

(25:49):
creates zero sum thinking, thebelief that resources,
recognition, and success arefinite, and so others must lose
for one person or one nation towin.
This mentality prevents thecollaborative problem solving
that complex modern challengesrequire. It also creates
organizational culturescharacterized by internal

(26:11):
competition rather thancollective effort. Research on
compensatory masculinity,something that we've done an
entire episode on in season one,reveals another problematic
pattern. Some men, particularlywhen they feel their masculinity
is threatened, overcompensate bydisplaying exaggerated masculine

(26:32):
behaviors. They have increasedaggression, increased risk
taking, and increased dominance.
This compensation often leads topoor leadership decisions that
are driven more by ego needsthan organizational
requirements. The concept ofmasculine honor cultures also
helps explain why some maleleaders struggle with admitting

(26:53):
mistakes or changing course. Inthese psychological frameworks,
admitting error or acceptinginput is seen as weakness rather
than wisdom. This createsleaders who persist with failing
strategies rather than adaptingbased on new information. When
organizations reward thesepatterns, promoting leaders who

(27:14):
appear confident and decisiveregardless of their actual
results, they create toxicleadership cascades.
The psychological environmentbecomes characterized by fear,
competition, and politicalmaneuvering rather than trust,
collaboration, and a sharedpurpose. Transforming leadership

(27:34):
selection and developmentrequires understanding the
psychological barriers thatmaintain current patterns and
implementing evidence basedinterventions to address them.
The science of behavior changegives us clear guidance on how
to create more effectiveleadership systems. First, we
must change how we define andmeasure leadership

(27:55):
effectiveness. Instead ofrelying on subjective
impressions or traditionalmarkers like confidence or
charisma, organizations need tofocus on measurable outcomes,
team performance, employeeengagement, innovation rates,
retention statistics, long termsustainability metrics.
Women consistently excel inthese areas, but they're often

(28:17):
overshadowed by leaders whosimply look or sound more
traditionally authoritative. Thepsychological principle here
involves outcome bias, thetendency to judge decisions
based on their results ratherthan the quality of the decision
making process at the time. Byfocusing on actual results
rather than perceived results,organizations can identify and

(28:39):
promote leaders who creategenuine value rather than just
leaders who give impressivepresentations. Next, leadership
development programs need to beredesigned based on current
neuroscience and positivepsychology research. This means
training that prioritizesemotional intelligence,
collaborative decision making,systems thinking, and adaptive

(29:02):
learning.
These capabilities aren'tnaturally distributed by gender,
but research shows that womenare more likely to already
possess them or to be receptiveto developing them. The concept
of growth mindset also becomesimportant here. Leaders who
believe abilities can bedeveloped through effort and
learning are much more effectivethan leaders who see leadership

(29:23):
as a fixed trait. Women are morelikely to approach leadership
development with growthmindsets, making them more
responsive to training and morelikely to continue improving
over time. Next, addressingunconscious bias requires system
level interventions, changingthe structure and processes that
allow bias to influencedecisions.

(29:46):
This includes using structuredinterviews, implementing diverse
evaluation panels, creatingstandardized assessment
criteria, and establishingaccountability measures for
diversity outcomes. The researchon bias interruption shows us
that awareness alone is notsufficient to change behavior.
People need specific tools andsystematic processes that make

(30:08):
bias visible and correctable.When organizations implement
these systems, they seesignificant improvements in the
recognition and advancement ofqualified women leaders. And
finally, we need to address thecultural narratives about
leadership that shape how wethink about authority and
competence.
The concept of stereotype threatshows us that negative cultural

(30:31):
messages can actually impairperformance by creating that
anxiety and self doubt. Creatingmore inclusive leadership
narratives benefits everyone byreducing psychological barriers
to effective leadership. Theevidence is overwhelming and
consistent across decades ofresearch. Women demonstrate

(30:52):
superior leadershipeffectiveness across virtually
every measure that matters fororganizational and societal
success. This isn't opinion orpreference or ideology.
It's empirical reality supportedby neuroscience, psychology,
management science, andobservable outcomes. The
psychological barriers thatprevent recognition of this

(31:13):
reality are understandableproducts of evolutionary history
and cultural conditioning. Butunderstanding these barriers
also reveals how we can overcomethem. When we focus on results
rather than perception, evidencerather than assumption, and long
term success rather than shortterm comfort, the path forward
becomes clear. The question isnot whether women can lead

(31:36):
effectively.
Science has settled thatquestion definitively. The
question is whether ourpsychological biases,
institutional practices, andcultural narratives can evolve
to match what the research hasbeen telling us for decades. The
organizations and societies thatmake this adaptation will have
significant advantages in thecoming years when we're facing

(32:00):
massive climate change andmigration due to that climate
change and changes in how theglobal economy works. Those that
don't will continue to underperform not just their
potential, but potentially puttheir society at risk. Thanks
for listening to PsyberSpace.
I'm your host, Leslie Poston,signing off. Until next time,

(32:21):
stay curious, and maybe helpyour organization catch up to
what the science has beentelling us all along. Don't
forget to subscribe so you nevermiss a week, and maybe share
this with a friend if you thinkthey'll enjoy it too.