What impact does power have on perceived sex and gender differences? A recent paper from researcher Adam Galinsky and Rotman PhD candidate Grusha Agarwal, explores this question through a meta-analysis of existing research. Their paper, entitled: “Are many sex/gender differences really power differences?” was published in PNAS Nexus in February 2024.

The paper delves into how power differences can be conflated with sex and gender. “Men have greater power and status in society as a whole,” Agarwal says. “[We wanted to know,] does power contribute to the sex and gender differences that we see?”

Take the example of a male employee working in a director-level role. That employee is assertive and confident in his work, which are behavioural traits more commonly associated with men. But is this greater assertiveness and confidence because the director is a male, or because he is in a position of power?

In her meta-analysis, Agarwal focused on how existing research presented differences between men and women, including:

Agency — or when people are striving to gain control over their environment. “Usually, gender literature shows that men are higher on [the] agency [scale],” says Agarwal. “They're more likely to assert themselves and strive for independence.”

Communion — or how people think of themselves in relation to others. “It’s the back base for social connection and cooperation,” Agarwal explains. “Women are usually higher in communion.”

Self-evaluation — or the assessing of one’s abilities and evaluations of one’s experiences. “Men evaluate themselves more positively than women do,” Agarwal says.

After analyzing 59 sets of findings from published experiments on power, Agarwal found that 71 per cent of sex/gender differences correlate with differences in power. “If we see that high-power people exert more agency than low-power people, we also see that men exert more agency than women,’ she says. “High-power people and men had similar findings and low-power people and women had similar findings.”

This means that differences between men and women may go beyond biology, and instead be attributed to the power imbalance between the two genders. “It’s not that women are just born this way, or men are just born this way,” Agarwal says.    

For example, Agarwal explains that women may tend to rank higher in communion (social connection and cooperation), not just because of neurological or biological differences, “but because we put women in lower positions where inequality gets reinforced”, she says.

The results of Agarwal’s research suggest that giving women more power can cause them to be more assertive and have more positive evaluations of their own abilities.

There are many implications for the findings in the working world. “If we expect men and women to act differently, I would like leaders to think about how much of this is an assumption we’re making about men and women, and how much of it is about a power difference,” Agarwal says.

Take the example of a manager promoting a junior associate into a senior role that requires a high level of assertiveness. The manager is worried that the female associate isn’t assertive enough and promotes the male associate instead. But if the woman had been promoted, she may end up showing the assertiveness desired because of her new position in power. “If you let that bias prevail, you're not actually putting her in a position where she can show that she can do it,” Agarwal says. “Is this woman actually not assertive? Or am I thinking that because I hold these preconceived notions about what women can and cannot do?”

Agarwal doesn’t advocate for removing power from anyone. Rather, her ideas focus on ways that women can be empowered. She suggests encouraging female team members to lead discussions in meetings. “Managers can ensure women’s voices are heard by asking them directly for their input and perspectives on critical topics discussed,” she says. “They can make women feel like their voice has power.”

Managers can also deliberately assign women to lead important, high-visibility projects. “A manager could appoint a female team member as a project lead,” suggests Agarwal. “If it’s a big project, women might be more hesitant to nominate themselves for it.”

An important theme in Agarwal’s suggestions is that those already in power need to lead the change. “I don’t advocate for the ‘lean in’ approach,” she says. “It puts the onus on women to change something to disrupt the status quo. I think the onus is on organizations to redesign their processes in ways that level-set the playing field.”