So to recap: > women outperform men on emotional intelligence > a quantitative review of gender differences in personality involving more than 23,000 particip

So to recap: > women outperform men on emotional intelligence > a quantitative review of gender differences in personality involving more than 23,000 participants in 26 cultures indicated that women are more sensitive, considerate, and humble than men Nothing wrong with these. The (helpfully linked!) science backs them up. > Unsurprisingly, the mythical image of a “leader” embodies many of the characteristics commonly found in personality disorders, such as narcissism (Steve Jobs or Vladimir Putin) , [...] Hold on. Okay, the listed people may not be perfect, but why do so many people feel it is appropriate to diagnose others with some kind of mental disorder, especially without having examined them in person? Shameful, clickbait-tier stuff. Oh, and why are those mentioned in an article that brings up gender differences? Are those supposed to claim that women lack disorders? Even if those people did actually have those disorders, is it a good idea to claim that women are better just because one or two men have disorders? > In fact, most leaders — whether in politics or business — fail. Doesn't answer the question, because it leaves out men, which the title raised specifically. > There is now compelling scientific evidence for the notion that women are more likely to adopt more effective leadership strategies than do men. Great! I'm really happy to hear that! But what does it have to do with men and their incompetence? Surely just because men are slightly less efficient, you wouldn't discard all male leaders? Where are the "incompetent men" here? > In sum, there is no denying that women’s path to leadership positions is paved with many barriers including a very thick glass ceiling. But a much bigger problem is the lack of career obstacles for incompetent men So there is a societal problem with women becoming leaders which I'll accept without argument. But why is the "the lack of career obstacles for incompetent men" relevant? Why should we, as a society, make it harder for men or for incompetent people to get jobs? I don't believe an authoritarian approach to job granting will actually benefit anyone. Why would you try to stop certain people from getting jobs? Why not make it easier for other kinds of people to get jobs instead? And I have to raise the argument (as mine would not be complete without it), why not just allow people to act on their own merit and decide who is the best leader based on what they do? The article stirs up a controversy (or whatever) but doesn't leave the reader with any actionable suggestions. Perhaps reevaluating managers more seriously for more accurate metrics could be a good idea! The author implies that we should learn to counter "our inability to discern between confidence and competence"... and I agree with that! It was simply not stated directly. But it has nothing to do with men or women. It should be about making things more fair. Which actually has nothing to do with gender, in this case. Learning how to tell good leadership from a good show really doesn't have to do with gender. I appreciate replies or direct emails. Fire away.