Where Do We Need More Female Leaders?

Three years ago, we reported that “strolling near a top corporate executive suite, you are more likely to bump into a man named James or Michael than a woman. At a combined total of 40, there are nine more James and Michael S&P 500 CEOs than the 31 females in a similar position.”

Today, I am happy to report that during 2023, we had more female S&P 500 CEOs than male CEOs named John or Jon. At 8.2% of the S&P 500, we had 41 CEOs that were women. The John or Jon total was 23. Still though, there were 60 men named James, Robert, or John compared to those 41 women.

For gender equality, the corporate situation echoes politics and science.

Gender Equality

Politics

If the world had more than five times as many female political leaders, then we would have gender equality:

Science

Like political leaders, to find more female scientists, it all depends on where and when you look. Compared with 2002, women climbed from being 29% of all researchers to 41% in 2022.

By 2022, at 42%, the U.S. slightly exceeded the world average while Portugal and Brazil were close to the 50% tipping point.:

And also, it does depend on the field. Looking at research authorship, woman topped the list for nursing and psychology while STEM is at the bottom:

However, displayed by two crucial citation metrics, we find women cited less in Wikipedia articles and patent citations. (I added the arrows.):

But we should note, as Axios reminds us, we get better science with more women. Indeed, mixed gender teams were more innovative than those composed of just women or all men. It just makes sense that women bring different ideas to the table from men.

Our Bottom Line: Expectation Bias

Whether looking at S&P 500 CEOs, the world’s leaders, or scientists, we see relatively few women at the top. A behavioral economist would suggest that seeing so few female leaders could shape our behavior by creating an expectation bias.

What we see matters.

In the following experiment, what we expected had an impact when a Harvard professor falsely labeled average rodents as either smart or dumb. Because his students seemed to have an affinity for the rats they assumed were smart, they handled them more frequently and more gently. Since touch affects a rat’s behavior, the “smart” ones not only outperformed the “dumb” ones but also were tamer, cleaner, more pleasant, and more likable. The professor concluded that his students had demonstrated an expectation bias that affected their subsequent behavior.

Similarly, when we are bombarded by the CEO patriarchy, patriarchal countries, and male scientists, it sadly makes sense that some of us expect more of the same.

My sources and more: As always, my Axios newsletter and their April 2023 female CEO data were inspirational. They were the ideal springboard to Our World In Data and Fast Company. Then, complementing all we considered, this study on expectation bias explained our data. However, if you go to just one link, do look at this report.

Please note that parts of today’s econlife were in a past post.