Due to the overwhelming disparity between men and women in the workforce, a progressive movement has attempted to change stereotypes and biases embedded in society to accept women as equal to men. However, in 2019, a mere “4.9% of Fortune 500 CEOs'' are women (Zenger and Folkman 2019); the lack of women leaders is an urgent concern because women in the workforce are unable to achieve their potential. In a perfect society, there would be an equal distribution of male and female leaders in all sectors of employment. Since 98% of “S&P 500 CEOs” were men, there is clearly something obstructing women from taking higher level positions (Zenger and Folkman 2019). Adding to the ambiguity, there is controversial evidence about societal views on women in leadership positions; some research shows that women are perceived to be equal if not better at being a leader than men (Zenger and Folkman 2019). However, others find that society has remained stagnant “over the past year” and failed to become “more progressive… towards women leaders” (O’Kane 2020). Although some advocates are trying to eliminate bias in society, I think that the attitudes toward women leaders remain unchanged because of the persistence of outdated expectations for women in most occupational sectors leading to the lack of confidence in women.

Women in high-level positions are “declining” in all industries due to “stereotypes and ‘“unconscious bias’” in society (Zenger and Folkman 2019). A study conducted in 2020 assessed different career fields using the Reykjavík Index for Leadership, where a score “less than 100” shows that women were not competent leaders in the corresponding job (O’Kane 2020). In most military and STEM fields, women encounter harassment, misogyny, and selection factors as a result of their gender. Similarly, “high-tech and AI” jobs scored “78” and “aerospace and engineering” careers scored “72” (O’Kane 2020). The highest scoring professions were “entertainment… natural sciences… and banking” (O’Kane 2020). However, these fields still did not achieve the optimum score of 100 in a group of “2,000 working-age adults'' (O’Kane 2020). Even more disheartening, finance is a career that is male-dominated, showing that employers may favor male employees despite the societal view that females are also adept at banking. In other words, the gender expectation of behavior still exists. For example, males are encouraged to be doctors and women are encouraged to be nurses. Healthcare is one of few fields dominated by females, yet the study found prejudice against female leaders in the industry (O’Kane 2020). Although there are many possible explanations for this discrepancy, I think it is the result of decades of stereotypes reinforced by society. From the Cult of Domesticity in the 1800s to present day housewives, women have been portrayed as caretakers, not breadwinners, and certainly not leaders. Therefore, others may feel more comfortable with a male leader, assuming that masculine traits are necessary to control an industry. This “unconscious bias” in society is unlikely to vanish overnight, a possible explanation for why many adults in the study continued to give women low ratings in all sectors (Zenger and Folkman 2019). Even the United States scored low, with a score of only “76” (O’Kane 2020). In this case, society has failed to accommodate women leaders because of the unfounded ideals that urge society to choose men over women who have comparable leadership qualities.

The source of the problem may also lie in the under confidence of women in the workforce despite their strong leadership qualities. A study found that women achieved higher scores in “17 of the 19 capabilities” that describe successful leaders (Zenger and Folkman 2019). Women were supposedly better at “taking initiative,” being resilient, “practicing self-development,” working hard for results, and “displaying high integrity” while men ”[develop] strategic perspective” and “technical or professional expertise” (Zenger and Folkman 2019). Under the premise that employees believe that a female boss is more skilled, there are two simple reasons that women are not overtaking men in the workforce. First, employers may value technical prowess and strategy over strong communication, honesty, and self-reflection. However, this might be unrealistic, as women-led companies are often profitable due the leader’s varied perspective and increased emphasis on socialization. On the other hand, the discrepancy between genders could be a result of the fact that most women lack confidence in contrast to their male counterparts. In a study conducted by Zenger and Folkman, they note that women are usually “more competent than they think” while men are “overconfident” (Zenger and Folkman 2019). As a result, men usually take more risks and apply for higher-level positions and promotions. Also, men are more encouraged by mentors to pursue higher careers when entering the workforce, a trend seen throughout history. Conversely, experienced women are restricted by the stereotype that they cannot excel in senior positions. Interestingly, the study suggests that “female confidence” and “overall leadership effectiveness” increase as women age and gain more experience (Zenger and Folkman 2019). Therefore, encouraging women could eliminate the issue because they would be more comfortable with accepting their qualifications early in their careers.

Some people already believe that we have made significant progress in promoting women leadership in the face of evidence showing that women are underrepresented in every category. Although more people are aware of the gender gap in leadership, the expectation of different behaviors across men and women generates different reactions in the workplace. For example, a male leader firing an employee may make him seem authoritative while the same action done by a woman could be misinterpreted as harsh and unnecessary. Our current culture can be described as a meritocracy in theory, but it is bound by such prejudice that prevents women from rising. The “Global CEO” of a market research company stated that she was shocked by the “the absence of progress” over the last three years (O’Kane 2020). Furthermore, younger people tend to be “less progressive in their views,” showing that this gender imbalance has the potential to persist (O’Kane 2020). Another factor that could delay the stable establishment of women in leadership is networking. People tend to connect with others like them, causing more jobs to flow toward men who have extensive networks with others in the field. This mentality also explains why women favor “women leaders… more” than men (O’Kane 2020). As a result of these factors, this problem will not fade over time. Rather, the issue will exacerbate as women are continuously pushed toward lower positions even though research finds that women leaders are “as effective as men” (Zenger and Folkman 2019). 

Through her evidence and in-depth analysis of all sectors of the workforce, O’Kane convinced me that women leadership is declining as a result of outdated social stereotypes. However, it must be noted that the survey cited in her article was taken before Kamala Harris was confirmed to be the first female Vice President-elect of the United States (O’Kane 2020). As a result, the true American ideals of women in politics and other fields may be higher because of her victory. Regardless, the survey was conducted in the U.S., “Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan… United Kingdom… India, Kenya and Nigeria,” so the election results may not have greatly impacted the statistics obtained (O’Kane 2020). Another potential fallacy in the author’s argument is that she generalized both prejudice and career fields, measuring prejudice through an index that may not account for all the factors associated with women in leadership. For example, only one career in a sector could show significant bias against women, making the whole sector appear discriminatory. Also, the study she referenced could have used convenience sampling instead of stratified sampling according to country, possibly drawing a sample unrepresentative of the true views of society. However, O’Kane mentioned the increased number of women in U.S. politics without reducing the impact of her argument. She also talked about how Jacinda Ardern and President Tsai Ing-wen were effectively controlling COVID-19, describing how some women wield power as strong leaders in society (O’Kane 2020). In addition, O’Kane quoted Michelle Harrison, the “CEO of Kantar's Public Division” to include her perspective on the lack of women in leadership. By providing specific research, referencing her counterargument, and quoting credible sources, O’Kane defends her claim and issues a compelling argument despite the potential fallacies embedded in her research.

Overall, although women empowerment is spreading around the world, society has yet to embrace women in higher level positions due to old-fashioned stereotypes that continue to discriminate against women leaders and chip away at their confidence. Societal stereotypes will take a long time to exterminate, but we can start by raising awareness and changing the minds of those who fail to recognize the potential in women employees. To combat under confidence in young women, we should motivate women to become leaders and “seek promotions earlier” to offset the perceptions that hinder women from continuing to rise in their careers (Zenger and Folkman 2019). Although I only described the surface-level problems affecting women leaders in the workplace, urgent action is necessary to regain equality so qualified individuals, regardless of gender, can lead society to a better future.