Women vs Men in Leadership: The Numbers
Ten measures of leadership representation and outcomes, side by side. The data now consistently debunks the idea that men are the natural default for leadership roles.
| Measure | Women | Men |
|---|---|---|
|
Share of Fortune 500 CEOs (2026 list)
A record high for women; Fortune's 2026 list is the fourth straight year above 10%.
Fortune, June 2026 · 2026
|
11% (55) | 89% (445) |
|
Share of S&P 1500 board seats
First time above 30% in 2023. Growing ~1.5 pp per year.
ISS Corporate Solutions · 2024
|
30.4% | 69.6% |
|
Share of US Congress members
119th Congress.
CAWP Rutgers · 2025
|
28.2% | 71.8% |
|
Leadership effectiveness (peer/subordinate ratings)
Zenger Folkman 360° data on 7,280 leaders (HBR, 2012).
|
Higher on 12/16 competencies | Higher on 4/16 |
|
Meta-analytic leadership effectiveness (99 samples)
Women rated equal or higher in business, education, social services; lower only in military contexts.
|
Equal or slightly higher | Baseline |
|
Legislative effectiveness (bills secured)
Over 1984-2004, female House members secured significantly more for their districts.
Anzia & Berry, AJPS (2011) · 2011
|
+$49M/yr federal spending per district | Baseline |
|
Company profitability when top-quartile diverse leadership
McKinsey's 'Diversity Matters Even More' (2023): companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 39% more likely to outperform on profitability. Correlation, not causation.
McKinsey (2023) · 2023
|
39% more likely to outperform | Baseline |
|
First-manager promotion rate (per 100 promoted)
The 'broken rung' — largest single pipeline loss point.
|
81 | 100 |
|
Likability penalty on agentic behavior
Identical assertive behavior gets women rated as 'difficult to work with'; men rated as 'confident.'
|
Penalized (lower likability + hirability) | Not penalized |
|
Mortality risk to patients of female vs male physicians
Tsugawa et al. analysis of 1.58M Medicare hospitalizations. Not leadership per se, but outcome-authority data.
|
0.4 pp lower 30-day mortality | Baseline |
What the numbers say
The research case for 'men as natural leaders' has collapsed. Meta-analyses of effectiveness, subordinate evaluations, legislative output, and company performance all point the same way — women lead as well as or better than men once they get the chance. What persists is the pipeline leak: the 'broken rung' at first-manager promotion, the likability penalty for agentic behavior, and the double bind that Heilman's research has been documenting for 25 years. The gap is in selection, not performance.
Related
Other comparisons
Sources
Frequently asked
Do women make worse leaders than men?
No. Meta-analyses of 99 samples (Paustian-Underdahl 2014) and 360° reviews of 7,280 leaders (Zenger Folkman, 2012) find women rated equal or slightly higher on effectiveness. The data doesn't support the stereotype.
Why do so few women reach the top?
The 'broken rung' — first-manager promotion — is the biggest pipeline leak. Women get promoted to manager at 81% the rate of men despite comparable performance. Compounding over a career produces the executive gap.
What is the 'double bind'?
Heilman and others document that women leaders face penalties for both warmth (seen as weak) and agency (seen as unlikable). Men can be either without equivalent penalty. It makes the same behavior cost women more.
Do companies with women leaders perform better?
McKinsey's 2023 'Diversity Matters Even More' found top-quartile gender-diverse executive teams were 39% more likely to outperform peers on profitability. Earlier years showed smaller but consistent effects.