Why Is Leadership Riskier for Women?

When it comes to the scarcity of women in top leadership roles, the usual explanations are cultural bias or a lack of ambition. But researchers Susan R. Fisk and Jon Overton offer another mechanism, based on three surveys: women are not unwilling to lead; they anticipate that if they fail, they will pay a far heavier price than men would, so they simply don't go for the role.

Nobody wants to be the fall guy

The first survey found that both men and women — but women more strongly — believe female leaders face greater sanctions for failure than similar men. There is good reason. Evidence shows women managers are formally penalized more harshly for ethical violations than men, and female surgeons see a sharper drop in referrals after a patient dies than male surgeons.

The second experiment offered respondents a high-risk leadership role. Half were told failure would let them return to their team with managerial support; the other half were told failure could mean losing their job with no support. Under the risky condition, both genders became less interested, but the drop was stronger for women.

The third study calculated that anticipated sanctions explain about 31% of the decrease in women's leadership ambitions. In other words, women's disinterest in leadership is rational risk-aversion, not innate deficiency. The authors argue that discrimination against female leaders harms not only current leaders but also deters future ones. In the end, women are not afraid of leading; they are afraid of being the one who gets blamed.