The Gendered Science of Risk

This week, I’m sharing a snippet on risk taking from my book, “Painted Wolves: A New Model of Leadership from Powerful Women.”

Research demonstrates that women are still perceived to be more risk averse than men. That is, we still expect women to play it safe and to take fewer chances than we expect men to. Women’s perceived risk aversion is often cited as a reason for women’s unfitness for leadership roles. Decision making in leadership requires risk—risk that women won’t take (or so it is assumed).  

As we’ve done throughout this book, let’s now see how research proves this view wrong, shall we? A recent study investigated gender differences in risk aversion and any underlying causes. Across five studies with more than 2,000 participants, the researchers found no gender differences in risk taking.

Case closed.


But the researchers were also interested in the cyclical nature of risk-taking and how responses to taking risks influence men’s and women’s future behavior. A survey study of approximately 500 working adults in the United Kingdom asked participants to report whether or not they had engaged in the risks listed. Risks included speaking up about bullying, asking for a pay raise, and taking on a task they didn’t know how to complete. For risks they had taken, participants then reported the outcomes of those risks. For risks they had not taken, participants shared what they expected the outcomes of taking that risk would be.  

When men and women hadn’t taken the risk described in their lives, they did not differ in the consequences they expected to follow from taking the risk.  

However, their lived experiences significantly differed from their expectations. Men reported experiencing more positive reactions to risk-taking than did women. As a result, men were also more likely than women to report engaging in the same risk-taking activity again at a later time.

The conclusion? Women are conditioned to take fewer risks. When women take fewer risks, it is because they have received negative reactions to risk-taking— a response that suggests engaging in risky behavior in the future is not a good idea.  In comparison, we react positively to men who take risks (likely because it aligns with our stereotypes). In the same way women learn to not take risks, men learn through experience that risk-taking is encouraged and rewarded.

However, the types of risk that men and women take may differ. To date, most research investigating risk-taking has relied on masculine definitions of risk. For example, measures of risk-taking often ask participants to report how likely they are to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

While women certainly own and ride motorcycles, the activity is stereotypically male. Conversely, risks more stereotypically related to women, such as reporting sexual harassment at work or having elective surgery, are not included. As such, there is an inherent male bias baked into the research.

Interested in this idea, the same researchers who investigated the gender-driven consequences for risk-taking also explored whether men and women differed in the types of risks they took at work. They presented participants with a list of both stereotypically masculine and stereotypically feminine risks and asked them to select which risks they had engaged in at work.

Although men were likely to engage in both types of risks, women were significantly more likely to engage in stereotypically feminine risks than in stereotypically masculine risks. Further, men reported positive outcomes for engaging in both types of risks, meaning contrary to the idea that men are punished for engaging in stereotypically feminine behavior, men in this study did not report experiencing backlash for taking more feminine risks.

To summarize,

1. Men and women do not fundamentally differ in their amount of risk-taking.

2. Women are more likely to take “lady risks.”

3. When men take risks, we say YAY!

4. When women take risks, we say “Behave yourself.”

5. As a result, men may be more likely than women to repeat risky behavior.

 In the context of COVID-19, discussions of risk largely centered on women’s risk aversion being an advantage. Women in leadership generally took more stringent and decisive actions more quickly than did their male counterparts in response to the emerging virus.

In light of the research on risk-taking, there are arguably two reasons why we saw women choose this response pattern.

The first, and arguably the most popular defense to date, is that women took the less risky decision. As a result, commentators argued that their decision making proved that risk-taking is not always beneficial. This is certainly a viable conclusion and one that should not be downplayed. Undoubtably, crises such as the 2008 financial crash, which resulted from excessive risk-taking in financial markets, have taught us that lesson before.

However, an alternative, second, explanation could be that women in leadership took different risks in response to COVID-19. Perhaps their risks were more “lady-like” than those of men in leadership. Take, for example, the notion of locking down an entire country and closing its borders. Call me crazy, but that seems risky to me. The outcomes were unknown—never in modern history had a country asked its citizens to not leave their homes for weeks, to not go to work, and to not travel. The idea was preposterous. Even today, as I reflect on the reality of what occurred, the idea that I left my house for only 1 hour a day for 6 months feels like a different life (also a good reminder of why I gained 10 pounds last year).

If we consider women’s responses from this perspective, we might argue that they prioritized different types of risks than did male leaders. Perhaps the women, in line with our expectations of them, immediately prioritized human lives. And perhaps the men, similarly in line with our expectations of them, immediately prioritized economic consequences. That’s an empirical question, an answer to which may be too late, but one that seems to flow from recent research. In a recent scientific paper, for example, OG gender researcher Alice Eagly discussed the ways in which women take personal risks to protect others.26 For example, in the United States, woman donate live kidneys more frequently than men do (and this kidney gender gap is growing!). Live kidney donation comes with risks, including several health-related complications. In the US Peace Corp, members are often exposed to health risks such as malaria, yet, women make up 65 percent of the Peace Corp. During the Holocaust, more single women in Poland, the Netherlands, and France participated in rescue activities compared to single men. If caught, this offense was punishable by death or placement in a Nazi concentration camp.

The idea that men make better leaders because they take more risks is foundationally flawed. Men and women take different kinds of risks. The question each of us needs to answer then becomes, which types of risks do we want our leaders to take?

Want to keep reading and learn more about leadership? Check out “Painted Wolves: A New Model of Leadership from Powerful Women” on Amazon.

As symbols of power, lions have often been used as a motivational figure for leaders. But do lions really make the best role models? Or does the painted wolf, with its collaborative and communal approach to life, provide a better example of leadership to follow?


Painted Wolves calls into question our dominant views of leadership by examining the underrepresented story of women leading their countries around the globe. Through these pages, you will:

• Challenge your perception of what it means to be an effective leader


• Identify 6 critical skills for leading differently and
• Develop strategies for supporting and growing the representation of women in leadership

From stories of the compassion and decisiveness of Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand to the collective approach of Mia Motley in the Caribbean, you’ll learn why we need a new model of leadership and how you can usher in a new era – the era of the painted wolf.


Previous
Previous

Why you need an inclusivity architect

Next
Next

Is it 1980?