Dr Naeema Pasha reflects on Mark Zuckerberg’s call for more ‘masculine energy’ in the workplace and gives an homage to the late Charles Handy along the way.
“We cannot wait for great visions from great people, for they are in short supply. It is up to us to light our own small fires in the darkness.” Charles Handy
For many people, equity in the workplace seems a sensible, decent and productive thing to achieve. Yet here we are in 2025, woefully behind on creating workplaces that have equitable outcomes – including for women. But even so, we’re hearing from leaders that actually we need more masculine energy in the workplace. To say that out loud – to millions including employees – is quite something. It must mean people feel confident that they are right. So what is the attraction of a masculine energy company?
The Perception of Masculinity in the Workplace: Research-Based Analysis
The construct that a more masculine approach is favoured in certain professional settings, particularly in sectors like finance and technology, is a complex issue with roots in deeply ingrained societal biases. Research suggests the argument for masculine traits seems to focus on three key traits.
- Assertiveness and Dominance: Studies suggest that assertive communication styles and a focus on individual achievement are often valued in fast-paced, competitive environments. These traits are frequently associated with traditional ideas of masculinity. Literally – move fast and break things.
- Risk-Taking and Decision-Making: Industries like finance and tech often involve high-stakes decisions and calculated risks. A perceived “masculine” approach of decisive action and calculated risk-taking can be seen as an asset – because “look at what’s at stake dude if we slow down”. Yes. But. Some deep crashes that caused catastrophes can be linked to rash decisions. So.
- Authority Leadership Styles: Traditional leadership models often emphasise directness, authority, and a focus on results. These characteristics can align with perceived masculine traits. The appeal of power-chat when we’re difficult conditions is easy to see – but does it translate to reality?
Looking at these traits I think all are useful – but it’s when people think these traits are the only/best way we get into problems. To say we need higher masculine energy and less female energy seems ridiculously dated. But they are said in countless workplaces and so we need to really consider how deep the impact of gender bias goes. We’ve built gender biases for over a hundred years within the leadership and management space. As such we all demonstrate our “Implicit Bias” which means such biases can lead to favouring individuals who exhibit traditionally masculine traits, regardless of gender in all of the talent pipeline. And now emphasising higher masculine traits are needed can/will create a disadvantage for women (and non-binary individuals) who may be perceived as less – less assertive, less decisive, less leadership-ey. We can see this on the political stage – even seeing the leadership stance of legs apart and shoulders back. Is a leadership based on how we stand now – and not on what we deliver? Preconceived notions about gender roles can influence perceptions of competence and leadership potential. For example, women who are assertive are still, to this day unbelievably, being labelled as “bossy” while men with the same behaviour are seen as “strong leaders.” This leaves women often saying they’ve got masculine traits in order to show leadership credentials, Rachel Reeves wanting to be known as The Iron Chancellor.
Why We Need to Resist This Notion
First and foremost. It’s bad business. Excluding individuals based on gender stereotypes limits the pool of available talent and hinders organisational growth. Countless studies show a diverse workforce brings a wider range of perspectives, experiences, and skillsets, leading to better decision-making and innovation.
But it’s not just about growth. As that late great Charles Handy said “A society dedicated to the enrichment and enhancement of the self will only survive and certainly will only prosper if the dominant ethic is the support and encouragement of others.” We all have responsibility to not reinforces harmful stereotypes. Leadership must know that the notion that certain traits are inherently “masculine” perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes that limit individuals’ potential and create a hostile work environment. Handy also said the future of work needs a balance of skills (that might be classified as more feminine – but I feel they are within all genders). He said that “Organisations need talented women in their core jobs…because many will have the kinds of attitudes and attributes that the new flexible organisation will need. If they screen out the women they will handicap their futures.” Charles Handy, The Empty Raincoat: Making Sense of the Future, 1994.
What can HR do?
Gender equality isn’t going to change quickly. But it can happen. In addition to all the great DEI work conducted in HR teams, I think a big part is to take a big step to change leadership thinking. Traditional leadership models that emphasise dominance and competition are increasingly being recognised as ineffective and unsustainable. Modern workplaces require collaborative, empathetic, and inclusive leadership styles. These are things we should look for all along the talent pipeline. Because the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in these sectors reinforces the perception that masculine traits are necessary for success. And despite the push against DEI, workplaces that value diversity and inclusion foster a sense of belonging, increase employee engagement, and promote a culture of respect and collaboration. We need to stay strong. The resistance is real.
“The future is not inevitable. We can influence it, if we know what we want it to be.” Charles Handy
