Defining ‘feminine’ leadership traits is toxic for everyone

As a woman and a leader, I feel a palpable weight stemming from the need to constantly justify the presence of women in corporate America. In 2024, why do we still need a reason for being?

I find myself cringing every time I hear someone label gender-neutral traits such as empathy or support as feminine, using them as reasons for women to have a seat at the table. In past jobs, women were brought in to handle “hard conversations” or “deal with a challenging client,” as if their sole purpose depended on their ability to de-escalate, comfort and reassure.

What I really want is for women to have the freedom to reclaim their femininity and develop their leadership as two unrelated but integral aspects of their work selves. I find myself thinking about my mother holding multitudes within her container. She isn’t boxed in; instead, she leans into her humanity rather than her gender identity in how she leads.

Only once we can disconnect from what society expects can women really lean into who we are and to make our best impact.

Degendering leadership behaviour

Leadership behaviours are divided into two broad categories: agentic and communal traits. Agentic traits, typically attributed to men, include assertiveness, competitiveness, dominance, and confidence. Communal traits, such as nurturing, sensitivity, empathy, and helpfulness, are often linked to women.

However, those gendered assumptions are not grounded in fact. Most individuals demonstrate a balance of agentic and communal traits, highlighting their complexity and variability regardless of gender.

Unfortunately, leaders are still held to these gendered assumptions, with research showing that they can influence perception. Women who exhibit agentic traits may be viewed less positively on communal or interpersonal skills. Similarly, men displaying communal traits may not align with traditional expectations of masculinity and leadership effectiveness.

Boxing either gender into a specific style hinders transformational leadership. Truly transformational leaders embody both agentic and communal traits. They can pull levers based on the situation, validating the need for a more holistic, gender-neutral definition of leadership.

Divorcing the evolutionary from the biological

I often hear a mass generalisation on how the “softer” traits associated with females are biological. Let’s debunk.

Though seemingly similar, the terms "biological" and "evolutionary" hold a nuanced distinction. Evolution expands its reach far beyond biology, responding to extrinsic factors like culture, society and technology. It does not follow a linear path, instead responding to needs at a point in time.

The soft traits attributed to women resulted from cultural conditioning from the early 20th century, when only 20% of women were active in the workforce. In a male-default world, the relatively late integration of women into the workforce reshaped the expectations placed on them, aligning with predefined societal roles that had long confined their contributions (read: childbearing and child-rearing).

Over time, as women proved their worth in the workplace and rose the ladder, they continued to carry the burden of history.

However, broadening the historical aperture, women have had a critical role in leadership throughout history. However, the historical gaze myopically focuses on the soft traits of female existence. We rarely hear about the historical presence of women in leadership roles—Queen Boudicca, Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Empress Matilda, and Cleopatra VII.

For leadership to embody an evolutionary and inclusive approach, it must adapt and evolve in sync with changing societal expectations. By challenging biases, leadership can evolve to be more responsive, inclusive and effective in navigating the complexities of our modern world.

I have shunned my femininity in the workplace in the past because I didn’t think it would help me succeed as a leader. As I found myself on safer and more effective teams where I was allowed to experiment with leadership, I realised that I didn’t need to be pigeonholed because of my gender identity. I had the freedom to lean into what was required to succeed. A gentle voice can be firm, a pretty dress can be assertive, and a pantsuit can be the most empathetic voice in the room.

My favorite of DDB’s Four Freedoms is “The Freedom To Be.” To be is to depart from outdated paradigms, challenge stereotypes and recognise and appreciate the diverse traits that individuals—regardless of gender—bring to the table. In doing so, we pave the way for more effective leadership that leverages the full spectrum of human capabilities.

It's not about discarding femininity or masculinity but recognising that leadership transcends gender norms.

Let's champion gender agnosticism in leadership, paving the way for a more effective and inclusive workforce where competence—not gender—defines leadership.

Julie Shah is a group strategy director at DDB Chicago.