I argued that the underrepresentation of women in leadership was not due to their lack of ability or motivation, but to our inability to detect incompetence in men. When men are considered for leadership positions, the same traits that predict their downfall are commonly mistaken—even celebrated—as a sign of leadership potential or talent.

...leadership is a resource for the organization—it is good only when employees benefit from it, by boosting their motivation and performance. Elevating the standards of leadership—not simply having more women in charge— should be the top priority.

Specifically, women elicit more respect and pride from their followers, communicate their vision more effectively, better empower and mentor their subordinates, approach problem solving in a more flexible and creative way, and are fairer and more objective in their evaluation of direct reports. In contrast, male leaders are less likely to connect with their subordinates and to reward them for their actual performance. Men focus less on developing others and more on advancing their own career agenda.

Clearly, then, women face a catch-22 to confront the pervasive biases underlying people’s stereotype of a good leader. When they display stereotypically masculine traits, women are dismissed for not being a typical woman; when they display stereotypically feminine traits, women are dismissed for not being a typical leader. Consequently, women need to be more qualified than men do, to compete with men for the same leadership roles.

Doing so [taking a critical look at a company’s leadership] will create the collateral benefit of boosting the proportion of women in leadership. Incidentally, this path will also increase the representation of competent men in leadership roles, as men too are currently disadvantaged by the same toxic criteria that stop talented women from becoming leaders.