There's a lot of begging the question fallacies in this article, the most prominent being that confidence has nothing to do with leadership. Which is nonsense -

There's a lot of begging the question fallacies in this article, the most prominent being that confidence has nothing to do with leadership. Which is nonsense - confidence is a fundamental part of leadership. Leadership is definitely more than confidence (as the second-last paragraph of the article suggests), but this article makes it sound like they're orthogonal traits. It also moves the goalposts: First up, it says that the best leaders are humble. Then it says that the best leaders, since they don't show this humility (eg Jobs), are not representative of the average manager... so now we're talking about middle managers, not 'best leaders'. Curiously, the article makes no mention of the Peter Principle - people can be competant, and keep getting promoted until they reach a level where they can no longer perform well. While that doesn't explain the gender difference, it does somewhat answer the article title - something the article doesn't actually do.