The United States has long been a global pioneer, shaping the world’s political, economic, and cultural landscapes. As the world’s largest economy and a hub of technological innovation, the United States has consistently set the pace for advancements in science, technology, and business. Its democratic principles and commitment to individual freedoms have made it a global beacon of hope and a global governance model.

Despite its leadership in many areas, the United States lags significantly in one crucial domain: gender parity in leadership, including political leadership. The disparity in political representation is particularly noteworthy in 2024, a year hailed as the largest global election year in history, with approximately 4 billion people heading to the polls in over 60 countries, including some of the world’s most populous economies.¹ As the world continues to make strides toward electing female leaders, the United States lags behind other nations, raising critical questions about its role as a global pacesetter.

The 2024 United States presidential election marks a significant moment, with the Democratic Party nominating a female candidate for the second time in history. This follows the election of the first female vice president in 2020, signaling progress but underscoring the slow pace of change. The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 63rd in political empowerment on the Global Gender Gap Index, far behind many other democracies.²   

Women comprise approximately 50% of the United States adult population, they hold only 25% of Senate seats, 29% of House seats, 24% of governorships, and 33% of state legislature offices.³  The underrepresentation of women in the political landscape mirrors broader societal challenges, where they continually face barriers in ascending to leadership roles.

The United States electorate remains divided on the issue of female political leadership. Hillary Clinton became the first woman nominated for president by a major political party in the 2016 election. She garnered 54% of the female vote and 41% of the male vote, while her opponent, Donald Trump, won 52% of the male vote and 39% of the female vote.⁴ Over time, the gap between male and female perspectives on women in leadership roles has widened.

In 1999, 51% of men and 62% of women believed that the country would benefit from more women in political leadership. In 2024, only 46% of men held this belief, while the percentage of women who supported female political leadership increased to 68%.⁵  

A survey of public opinion regarding women in political leadership across political parties reveals further deepening of the divide. In 1999, 47% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats believed that more women in political leadership would improve governance.⁶  In 2024, the figures diverged even more sharply, with just 32% of Republicans supporting women in leadership roles, compared to 84% of Democrats.⁷ 

The increased gender divide highlights the persistence of traditional gender norms among certain segments of the population, particularly among men and Republican voters. The stark difference reflects broader ideological divides, suggesting Republicans tend to favor traditional gender roles more strongly than Democrats. Such attitudes directly influence the extent to which women can participate in political leadership, often subjecting female candidates to greater public and media scrutiny than male counterparts.

The data for women in the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, Governors, and the U.S. Cabinet appointments highlight significant strides, with a consistent increase in female representation, particularly within the Democratic Party.^8,9,10

The Republican Party has historically nominated fewer female candidates, although it has had high-profile women leaders such as Condoleezza Rice, who served as Secretary of State, and Nikki Haley who was a Governor and later, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The Democratic Party has demonstrated some gender diversity success with leaders like Hilary Clinton who was a Senator, party nominee for the presidential race, and Secretary of State, Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the house, and Kamala Harris, the first female vice president and now, party nominee for the presidential race serving as prominent examples.

Women running for political office in the United States face unique challenges. Research shows that female candidates are judged more harshly on personal characteristics, such as appearance or family life, than male candidates.¹¹ Such heightened scrutiny has a chilling effect, discouraging many qualified women from seeking leadership roles. Furthermore, systemic barriers, including fewer financial resources and limited access to political networks further compound the difficulties women face in United States politics.¹²

The United States falls short of global leadership in female political representation. Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka became the first democratically elected female prime minister in 1960. Since then, 80 countries have elected women as heads of state or government, with 27 countries being led by women as of January 2024.¹³   Recent elections in Mexico, the Democratic Republic of Congo, North Macedonia, Malta, and the Marshall Islands have added to the growing number of female leaders. Notably, in 2024 alone, seven countries elected female heads of state or government, a stark contrast to the United States, which has yet to elect a woman as president despite its global influence.

Countries with gender parity in leadership often implement structural reforms. Nations like Rwanda and Sweden adopted gender quotas, significantly increasing female representation in political office.¹⁴ These policies ensure women are not represented in token numbers but hold significant political power. In contrast, the United States has no such mandates, and progress remains slow and inconsistent.

As of 2024, the Council of Women World Leaders, comprising female presidents and prime ministers, boasts 90 members.¹⁵

The United States is a global leader but not in the critical area of gender parity. It has made notable strides, but women remain underrepresented in political leadership positions, so there is much more to do. Achieving gender parity in political leadership requires addressing societal attitudes and structural barriers.

Public opinion plays a key role, as do policies that promote equal opportunities. Gender quotas, campaign finance reforms, and policies that support work-life balance for female candidates are just a few measures that could help level the playing field. Additionally, shifting societal perceptions about gender roles is key to ensuring broader acceptance of female leadership.

As other countries continue to elect female leaders and make strides toward gender parity, the United States must confront its gender parity challenges to ensure a conducive environment that provides women the opportunity to lead at the highest levels.

The November 2024 election results will provide further insight into where the American public stands regarding women in political leadership, all political factors considered.

The term “leader” is frequently ascribed to individuals in groups, organizations, and communities, based on their position.  In the dynamic landscape of organizations, leadership, and positional authority intersect. They are fundamentally different but frequently referenced as though they are synonymous.

Leadership and the influence that comes with it are not synonymous with simply holding a position of authority. A leader inspires, influences, motivates, and guides their team toward achieving common goals, cultivating an environment where innovation and collaboration thrive.

Conversely, positional authority relies on title or rank- formal power to enforce compliance and maintain control. Understanding the distinction between the roles is crucial to driving meaningful change and fostering a positive organizational culture. We will explore the characteristics that define true leadership and contrast them with those of positional authority.

True leadership transcends titles and organizational charts. Leaders earn respect and followership through their actions, integrity, and ability to connect with team members on a personal level. They foster an environment where innovation, creativity, and collaboration thrive.[i] On the other hand, positional authorities often command and coerce rather than lead, leveraging their formal power to elicit performance. Such an approach can lead to a culture of compliance rather than commitment.[ii]

• Vision and Direction: Leaders articulate a clear vision and inspire others to work toward it.
• Emotional Intelligence: Leaders are adept at managing their own emotions and understanding others’ emotions, creating a supportive and motivating environment.
• Integrity: Leaders demonstrate ethical behavior and transparency, building trust within their teams.
• Empowerment: Leaders delegate authority and encourage decision-making at all levels, fostering a sense of ownership among team members.
• Trust: Leaders build trust with consistent ethical behavior and transparent team communication.

about youPositional authority is derived from the formal power granted by an organization to an individual, based on role and title. Such power allows managers to make decisions, allocate resources, and direct activities. Managers with positional authority are responsible for teams meeting organizational goals and adhering to policies and procedures. A manager with positional authority sets goals, monitors performance, and enforces rules. Managers can compel employees to follow directives through rewards and penalties. While this approach can help achieve short-term objectives, it does not lead to long-term engagement and motivation.

Overreliance on positional authority stifles creativity and leads to disengagement. Individuals are more likely to be motivated and committed when working with leaders they perceive as authentic and supportive rather than authoritative.

The distinction between a leader and a positional authority is fundamental to organizational success. While positional authority can be used in management to maintain order, leadership drives innovation, engagement, and long-term success. Organizations must cultivate leaders who can inspire and empower teams, fostering a culture of trust and collaboration.

Reflect on the individuals you know professionally and personally; are they leaders, or individuals who merely exert positional authority? How about you?  Are you leading or leaning on positional authority? Look out for a self-assessment in an upcoming post.