An Evolutionary Explanation for the Female Leadership Paradox

Abstract

Social influence is distributed unequally between males and females in many mammalian societies. In human societies, gender inequality is particularly evident in access to leadership positions. Understanding why women historically and cross-culturally have tended to be under-represented as leaders within human groups and organizations represents a paradox because we lack evidence that women leaders consistently perform worse than men. We also know that women exercise overt influence in collective group-decisions within small-scale human societies, and that female leadership is pervasive in particular contexts across non-human mammalian societies. Here, we offer a transdisciplinary perspective on this female leadership paradox. Synthesis of social science and biological literatures suggests that females and males, on average, differ in why and how they compete for access to political leadership in mixed-gender groups. These differences are influenced by sexual selection and are moderated by socioecological variation across development and, particularly in human societies, by culturally transmitted norms and institutions. The interplay of these forces contributes to the emergence of female leaders within and across species. Furthermore, females may regularly exercise influence on group decisions in less conspicuous ways and different domains than males, and these underappreciated forms of leadership require more study. We offer a comprehensive framework for studying inequality between females and males in access to leadership positions, and we discuss the implications of this approach for understanding the female leadership paradox and for redressing gender inequality in leadership in humans.

The eco-evolutionary landscape of power relationships between males and females

“…Power, defined as the ability to elicit particular behaviours in others [1,2], is a pervasive yet elusive characteristic of social relationships. Identifying the ultimate and proximate underpinnings of power can provide insights into the emergence, dynamics and consequences of social and gender inequalities in human and animal societies; topics of increasing societal significance [3][4][5][6]. Power can be divided into two main domains:…”

“…It emerges through three main non-mutually exclusive mechanisms: (i) coercion (see Glossary), where asymmetries in coercive potential may for example arise from differences in intrinsic and social attributes, experience, or motivation [5], (ii) deception, whereby individuals manipulate the information available to others [9], and (iii) trade, whereby some individuals may have a bargaining advantage or 'leverage' because they possess valuable resources and services that can be exchanged ('commodities') but cannot be taken by force [1,8,10]. Decisional power, also termed 'leadership', commonly refers to the ability of an individual to influence the behaviour of others in ways that generate collective activities in various contexts, such as movement, foraging, hunting, and intergroup conflict [3,4,7]. Asymmetries in resource-holding power between individuals of the same and different sex are prevalent in nonhuman mammalian societies and presumably have a deeper and more direct impact on individual survival and reproduction than decisional power [6,11].…”

BaYaka forager food sharing networks in the Congo Basin: The roles of gender homophily and kin sharing

“…There may also be gender‐based differences in positions in certain types of social networks, and in the formation and maintenance of cooperative relations (von Rueden et al, 2018). These differences may be influenced by evolved dimensions of reproductive strategies in humans and other mammals and likely also intersect with local social norms and culturally evolved conventions regarding gendered group formation in humans (Gurven, 2004; Redhead & Power, 2022; Smith et al, 2021).…”

“…Moreover, compared with males, female mammals also more commonly remain in their natal group or range (female philopatry), increasing opportunities for repeated interactions and relationships with kin. According to sexual selection perspectives, mammalian males may be more motivated by forms of social status/rank (e.g., dominance) and coalitionary support that aid in access to contested resources and increase sexual opportunities with potential mates, as males are not similarly constrained by offspring care (Mattison et al, 2019; Silk, 2007; Smith et al, 2021; Sterck et al, 1997; von Rueden et al, 2018). Consequently, these sex differences may shape subsistence and social activities, and by extension orientation toward cooperation/sharing partners.…”

Sex bias in intergroup conflict and collective movements among social mammals: male warriors and female guides

“…The balance of the costs and benefits of participating in collective action in general, and potentially lethal intergroup conflict in particular, are also expected to vary, on average, for males and females. Because female reproduction in mammals is constrained by the energetic demands of gestation and lactation, female fitness is primarily limited by access to food and caring for young [38][39][40], and we might, therefore, expect females to be more involved than males in managing collective movements to locate food or safety to support their current and future reproduction [39,41,42]. Increased access to food gained from winning intergroup conflicts, however, is generally unlikely to overwhelm the risk of injury or death for females or their offspring, particularly since female fitness increases throughout the reproductive lifespan.…”