Today, I am bothered by how women and girls are forging their leadership identity and presence, navigating a man’s world.
But before we can have an honest conversation about this, we must
first be clear about what leadership is not. Leadership is not masculinity, and authority and decisiveness are not sex-linked traits.
Biology tells us that humans are born male and female — that is sex. Gender, however, is something else entirely. It is a social construct, shaped over time by norms, expectations, and repeated behaviours.
If gender is socially constructed, then it is also socially modifiable. Civilization, by definition, requires that we evolve our socialization in ways that serve collective progress rather than
undermine it.
And yet, we continue to accept leadership cultures that treat exclusion as normal rather than as a structural defect. For me, one of the most persistent contradictions in modern
society is the quiet acceptance of systems that exclude nearly 50 per cent of the population from meaningful participation in decisions that directly shape their lives.
Women are biologically central to the continuity of society. They bear the physical responsibility of reproduction and navigate lived realities unique to them.
When policy and leadership
decisions undermine their input and leadership presence, societies willingly design systems with incomplete intelligence. This exclusion is not just illogical; it is self-sabotaging.
Consider the health sector in Nigeria, for example, there are only 7 female health
commissioners. This is a sector that governs how people are born and how they live, and one that directly shapes women’s bodies and health outcomes. When representation is absent,
healthcare systems and policies risk being technically sound yet misaligned, producing outcomes that fail to reflect the realities of the entire population.
Leadership identity and presence, therefore, cannot be reduced to inherited traits or gendered performances. Leadership must shift from perception to evidence, from who fits the image to
who delivers results. I remember lamenting to a friend about a female policymaker who alwaysnseems to get into gimmicks to make a point, and how it is a draining performance.
Leadership Is Not Masculinity
Leadership is not masculinity, and authority and decisiveness are not sex-linked traits. This distinction matters because much of how leadership is imagined today is still filtered through
gender norms rather than grounded in actual leadership competence.
Masculinity, as it is commonly understood, refers to a set of traits historically associated with
men — assertiveness, dominance, emotional restraint, competitiveness, and physical or verbal boldness. These masculine-coded traits in themselves are not leadership competencies.
Performing dominance is not the same as exercising judgment.
When leadership is narrowly defined through masculine norms, two things happen. First, women are assessed not on competence, but on conformity; whether they “look” or “sound” like
what leadership has been socially conditioned to resemble. This is not a problem of women lacking leadership ability; it is a problem of societies confusing gendered expression with
leadership substance.
The Future: What Leadership Presence Could Look Like Beyond Gender Competency-based Leadership
This is leadership assessed through the substance of one’s contribution. Authority is the ability to guide direction and be accountable for consequences; decisiveness is the capacity to make
timely, informed choices in uncertainty; service is the willingness to place collective outcomes above personal comfort or ego.
These are competencies, not masculine traits. In practice, this means prioritising expertise, ethical judgment, and measurable outcomes over image. It
replaces charisma as a qualification with competence as proof.
Inclusive Decision-Making
Inclusive decision-making is not an act of charity. It is a corrective measure that strengthens governance. When half the population is absent, policies become less credible and often less
effective. The Reserved Seats Bill is not a plea for favour but a structural solution to an imbalance. Inclusion is not generosity; it is a rational step toward better outcomes for everyone.
Representation as Intelligence, Not Tokenism
Representation becomes tokenism when it is symbolic and detached from influence. But when
representation is tied to decision-making power, it becomes intelligence. It is not about optics; it is about outcomes. Where tokenism fills a seat, representation enriches deliberation.
Systems That Value Lived Experience
A system that values lived experience recognises that expertise is not defined solely by credentials. Real-world experience reveals blind spots and practical implications that data alone
cannot capture. When lived experience is treated as valid expertise, leadership becomes grounded in reality rather than abstraction.
Redefining Leadership Presence and Unclinging to Gender Norms
Gendered norms do more than exclude women; they undermine competence. When women are pressured to fit molds that were never designed for them, their value is filtered through conformity instead of substance. This not only silences voice but strips society of innovation.
Leadership presence should be anchored on:
● Clarity — articulating purpose and direction.
● Service — prioritising collective interest over personal gain.
Accountability — owning decisions and consequences.
● Results — translating vision into tangible improvement.
The Consequence
The cost of clinging to masculine norms is diminished performance. We build systems with incomplete intelligence, make decisions with limited insight, and normalise outcomes misaligned
with the populations they serve.
The exclusion of women does not merely hurt women; it undermines leadership itself. In the end, the question is not whether women can lead. It is whether society is prepared to update its definition of leadership so that presence is measured by competence, service, and results, not gendered expectations.
Anything less is a self-imposed limitation on our collective potential. Loudness is not leadership. Dominance is not decision-making. Emotional restraint is not strategic clarity.
