Meili W.

Why, in a world filled with talented, driven women, do we still view leadership as a man’s domain? Why do so many women feel the need to prove their worth time and again in roles of authority? These questions push us to examine the often invisible yet powerful influence of social constructs.

What are social constructs?

At their core, social constructs are widely shared ideas that shape how we understand the world around us. They aren’t based on inherent truths but on beliefs and norms society collectively creates and upholds. These ideas become so deeply embedded in our everyday lives that they start to feel “natural” or “obvious,” though they are anything but. They determine who we perceive as “leaders,” “heroes,” or “decision-makers” and who we see as “helpers” or “supporters.” For women in leadership, these constructs serve as invisible barriers, shaping both how society views their roles and how they see their own potential.

Let’s explore five key constructs—collective acceptance, social reinforcement, language and symbols, power dynamics, and normalization—that quietly but powerfully shape our perception of leadership. Each of these constructs limits women’s paths to leadership, and each demands scrutiny if we hope to redefine leadership in more inclusive terms.

1. Collective acceptance: how social constructs quietly define who leads

What It Is:

Collective acceptance forms the bedrock of our social constructs. When we talk about collective acceptance, we mean the beliefs we, as a society, agree upon—even when those beliefs have no factual basis. It’s the foundation that supports other constructs and dictates social norms. Margaret Gilbert (as cited in Wray, 2001) refers to these shared beliefs as “collective acceptance”—the story that a group decides to treat as true, which can create significant barriers for women seeking leadership roles. The more people agree on this story, the more it feels like reality. For example, we often assume men are naturally more suited for leadership roles. This belief has no inherent truth; it comes from years of unchallenged assumptions.

In male-dominated sectors such as finance, tech, and politics, we see collective acceptance at work. These industries have constructed a “natural” image of leadership as something that men inherently do better. When men dominate corporate boardrooms, the decisions they make often reflect male experiences, values, and priorities, highlighting the pervasive gender bias in leadership (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016).As these norms get repeatedly reinforced, we begin to see them as the ultimate guide to what leadership should be.

Impact on Women in Leadership:

For women, collective acceptance creates a barrier. It forces them to fit into a narrow mold of leadership that has little to do with their actual capabilities. Women find themselves stuck in a cycle of constantly proving they belong, trying to match a standard that was never meant for them. Dreher (2015) argues that this endless cycle of overcoming leadership barriers for women leads to burnout and exhaustion. Instead of being their authentic selves, many women feel pressured to perform a version of leadership designed by and for men. In doing so, organizations miss out on the kind of empathetic, adaptable, and innovative leadership that women bring to the table.

2. Social reinforcement: why social constructs reinforce traditional gender roles

While collective acceptance lays the groundwork, social reinforcement keeps these beliefs alive across generations. This construct ensures that the rules society accepts become behaviors we encourage and enforce every day.

What It Is:

Social reinforcement shapes gendered behavior from early childhood through rewards and punishments. Cadenas (2023) calls this a “social reinforcement cycle,” where society encourages behavior that fits the mold and subtly discourages anything that steps outside it, perpetuating gender bias in leadership. For instance, when a girl gets praised for being cooperative and gentle, while a boy gets praised for being assertive and confident, we set the stage for a lifetime of conformity. We tell boys to lead and girls to support.

As women grow, they continue to experience reinforcement that steers them into “appropriate” roles. They hear praise for being good team players but face criticism for taking charge. This social reinforcement, which contributes to gender bias in leadership, doesn’t just come from family or educators; it’s everywhere—in workplaces, media, and daily interactions (How, 2022). Ultimately, this cycle tells women they are naturally better suited for supportive roles, while men are destined to lead.

Impact on Women in Leadership:

Social reinforcement traps women in a double bind. If women assert themselves, people label them as “too much” or “too aggressive.” If they choose to collaborate, people dismiss them as weak. These mixed messages discourage women from pursuing leadership roles on their own terms. Women start to downplay their ambitions or second-guess their choices to avoid backlash. For organizations, this lack of diverse leadership limits creativity and growth. By reinforcing these gendered expectations, we keep leadership one-dimensional.

3. Language and symbols: framing leadership through words

While social reinforcement pushes people into predefined roles, language is the tool that solidifies these roles. The words we use have the power to shape what we see as possible and permissible

What It Is:

Language goes beyond communication—it shapes how we define reality. The words we choose carry weight. They tell us who has power and who should stay in the background. Wooldridge (2015) points out that language is full of gender biases. For example, when men lead, we often describe them as “assertive” or “strong.” When women display those same behaviors, we call them “bossy” or “emotional” (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2006). These words may seem trivial, but they affect how we view female leadership on a deeper level.

When society uses negative labels for women who take charge, those words act like mirrors. Women see themselves reflected in these labels, and they internalize that negative image. They start believing they must soften or shrink to be acceptable.

Impact on Women in Leadership:

Biased language doesn’t only affect how others perceive women; it impacts how women see themselves. Constantly fighting these labels, women might hesitate to take bold actions, fearing the criticism that will follow. This self-censorship stifles leadership potential, and organizations lose out on having leaders who are willing to challenge the norm. If we change our language—if we start describing women’s strength as strength and their leadership as capable and visionary—we make room for more authentic and inclusive leadership, ultimately contributing to female empowerment (Ehrlich, 1992).

4. Power dynamics: how social constructs shape hierarchy

Language constructs our reality, but power dynamics determine who gets to act within that reality. If language frames leadership, power dynamics control access to it.

What It Is:

Power dynamics are about how we distribute influence and control. Historically, men have held most positions of power, especially in business, politics, and law. Dreher (2015) explains that power dynamics are more than just individual biases; they’re deeply embedded in organizational structures, contributing to gender bias in leadership. They are spaces where power gets consolidated and leadership paths are created, often excluding women.

When men hold most of the power, they control who gets mentored and who gets promoted. This creates a cycle where men mentor and advance those who remind them of themselves. These dynamics ensure that leadership stays with those who have always had it, which makes it incredibly difficult for women to break through.

Impact on Women in Leadership:

These power dynamics force women to work twice as hard to prove they deserve a seat at the table. They face more scrutiny than their male counterparts and often get excluded from the informal networks that lead to promotions and influence. This isolation doesn’t just hurt the women who are left out—it hurts the entire organization by limiting the range of ideas and perspectives. To break this cycle, organizations must actively open up these networks and make room for diverse leaders.

5. Normalisation: how social constructs turn bias into ‘common sense’

If power dynamics determine who gets to lead, normalization explains why we so rarely question who ends up in leadership roles. Normalization makes biased power structures look like “just the way things are.”

What It Is:

Normalization turns social constructs into “common sense.” It makes repeated biases appear natural. Over time, these patterns get so deeply embedded in our consciousness that we accept them without question. Ashforth and Schinoff (2016) argue that this normalization of gender bias in leadership is why people still look at a boardroom full of men and think, “That’s just how it is.”

When biases become normalized, they become invisible, making them harder to challenge. People don’t see them as biases; they see them as facts. This isn’t because men are inherently better leaders—it’s because we have always presented male leadership as the default.

Impact on Women in Leadership:

Normalization makes it incredibly difficult for women to advance. Even when they have all the qualifications, they still face obstacles because society views male leadership as more “natural.” Dreher (2015) points out that these normalized expectations discourage many women from even trying to take on leadership roles, effectively adding another hurdle in their journey of overcoming leadership barriers for women.

Conclusion

The barriers facing women in leadership roles are not rooted in their abilities but in the stories that society has told—and continues to tell—about who can lead. Awareness of these social constructs is just the first step. From here, we need meaningful action: questioning our own biases, changing the way we speak about leadership, opening up exclusive networks, and challenging norms that have held us back for too long.

Redefining leadership to include all voices isn’t just about fairness—it’s about tapping into the full potential of humanity. It’s time to create leadership spaces where everyone, regardless of gender, has the opportunity to belong, thrive, and make a difference.