In January 2025, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sparked a fierce debate about gender, power and leadership after making controversial comments about the role of “masculine energy” in corporate culture.

Speaking on The Joe Rogan Experience, Zuckerberg argued that corporate culture had become too “culturally neutered” and suggested that society—and businesses in particular—could benefit from having more traditionally masculine traits such as aggression and competitiveness.[1]

His comments quickly travelled far beyond Silicon Valley. Supporters interpreted them as a defense of ambition, risk-taking and competitive leadership. Critics saw something much more consequential: a billionaire CEO publicly questioning the cultural direction of modern workplaces at a moment when women are still significantly underrepresented in corporate leadership.

The controversy raises a bigger question: What happens when traits traditionally associated with masculinity become the definition of successful leadership?

What Did Zuckerberg Actually Say?

Zuckerberg’s argument was not simply that men should run companies. His broader point was that corporate culture had, in his view, become too cautious and uncomfortable with traditionally masculine characteristics.

He argued that there is value in having more “masculine energy” in business and specifically defended aggression as something that can have positive consequences.

That distinction matters.

Confidence, competitiveness, ambition, decisiveness and willingness to take risks are not inherently male characteristics. Women can—and do—display all of them.

The problem begins when these characteristics become culturally coded as masculine and are treated as more legitimate when exhibited by men.

A man who is assertive may be described as confident. A woman displaying exactly the same behavior can be perceived as aggressive, difficult or intimidating.

This is not merely an anecdotal phenomenon. Decades of organizational and psychological research have examined how gender stereotypes influence perceptions of leadership.

The Leadership Double Standard

Corporate history has traditionally associated leadership with characteristics such as dominance, authority, competitiveness and emotional toughness.

And historically, these were characteristics associated with men.

Women entering these environments therefore faced a difficult paradox: they were expected to demonstrate leadership qualities while simultaneously avoiding behavior that violated traditional expectations of femininity.

Be too agreeable, and you may be considered weak.

Be too aggressive, and you may be considered difficult.

Be ambitious, and you may be judged more harshly.

Be emotional, and your competence can be questioned.

This creates what researchers have often described as a double bind. In a widely cited review, Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau described the “role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders,” explaining how women can be judged negatively when leadership expectations conflict with gender stereotypes.Research by Madeline E. Heilman similarly documents how women may face penalties when they are perceived as violating prescriptive expectations about how women should behave.

The issue is not that aggression or competitiveness are inherently bad. They can sometimes be useful in business. The issue is whether organizations begin treating aggression as a prerequisite for authority.

If the answer becomes yes, people who naturally lead through collaboration, empathy, listening or consensus-building can be systematically undervalued.

And that affects men too.

The “Masculinity Contest” Workplace

Organizational researchers have developed the concept of masculinity contest culture to describe workplaces where employees feel pressure to demonstrate traditionally masculine behaviors.

In their foundational work, James R. VanderVelde, Jennifer L. Berdahl and colleagues describe masculinity contest cultures as environments that reward characteristics such as dominance, competitiveness, emotional toughness, self-reliance and prioritizing work over personal life.

These environments can reward extreme competition, physical or emotional toughness, long working hours, dominance and a willingness to sacrifice personal well-being for professional success.

The consequences can extend beyond gender inequality.

Employees may become reluctant to admit mistakes. Asking for help can be interpreted as weakness. Taking parental leave can be perceived as a lack of commitment. Collaboration can be replaced by internal competition.

Research on masculinity contest culture has also linked these environments to burnout, reduced well-being, unethical behavior and sexual harassment.

And when status is connected to dominance, harassment can become easier to normalize.

This is particularly relevant when looking at industries that have faced repeated allegations of sexual harassment and misogyny. The existence of a masculinity contest culture does not prove misconduct in any particular company, but it can help explain why certain organizational environments may make reporting problems more difficult and aggressive behavior more socially acceptable.

Silicon Valley’s Masculinity Problem

The technology industry has long struggled with gender imbalance.

Women remain significantly underrepresented in many technical and executive positions. The National Center for Women & Information Technology continues to document substantial gender disparities across computing and technical occupations, while women remain underrepresented in senior technology leadership.[6]

Silicon Valley has also historically celebrated a particular archetype of entrepreneur: highly competitive, extraordinarily ambitious, willing to work relentlessly and prepared to take enormous risks.

That archetype can produce extraordinary companies.

But it can also become restrictive.

If the cultural definition of the “ideal entrepreneur” increasingly resembles a stereotypically masculine personality, women may face additional pressure to adapt themselves to that model.

Instead of asking whether women can succeed in technology, we should perhaps ask a different question:

Why should succeeding in technology require conforming to a particular gendered model of leadership in the first place?

The Timing Makes the Debate More Important

Zuckerberg’s comments arrived during a broader corporate backlash against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives.

Meta subsequently made significant changes to its diversity-related policies and programs. In January 2025, the company announced that it would end its diversity, equity and inclusion programs in several areas, including hiring and supplier diversity, while also ending its “diverse slate” approach to hiring. Meta said the changes reflected a shift in the legal and policy environment, including recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and broader changes in how companies approached DEI.

Meta also ended its fact-checking program in the United States and introduced a Community Notes model, although that policy change concerned content moderation rather than workplace diversity.

These developments should not be treated as proof that Zuckerberg’s remarks caused Meta’s policy changes. The company described the changes as part of a broader legal and political shift, and the relationship between public statements and corporate policy is not necessarily direct.

But together, these developments created a powerful cultural signal.

For years, many corporations had increasingly emphasized inclusion, representation and psychological safety.

Now, some of America’s most powerful business leaders are openly questioning whether corporate culture went too far in that direction.

The debate is therefore no longer simply about one CEO’s choice of words.

It is about which values modern capitalism should reward.

What Does This Mean for Women?

The biggest concern is not that women will suddenly be excluded from boardrooms.

It is subtler.

Culture determines what behavior is rewarded.

If aggression becomes associated with leadership, women may feel pressure to become more aggressive to compete.

But they can also face social penalties when they do.

This creates an impossible situation: women may have to demonstrate traditionally masculine traits to be considered leaders while simultaneously being judged negatively for displaying them.

The result can be a workplace where women are technically allowed to participate but are implicitly encouraged to behave differently from men.

That is not necessarily equality.

Research on the leadership double bind suggests that women can face both descriptive bias—assumptions about how women are likely to behave—and prescriptive bias—judgments about how women should behave.[2][3] In practice, this can mean that a woman who is perceived as warm may be judged as less competent, while a woman who is perceived as highly competent may be judged as less likable or less socially acceptable.[9]

But There Is Another Side

There is an important argument that should not be ignored.

Critics of modern corporate culture sometimes have legitimate concerns about excessive bureaucracy, political correctness, risk aversion and workplaces where employees become afraid to disagree.

Companies absolutely need people who are willing to challenge conventional thinking.

They need ambition.

They need competition.

They need risk-takers.

They need people who can make difficult decisions.

None of these qualities belong exclusively to men.

That is precisely the point.

We should separate useful leadership traits from the gender stereotypes attached to them.

A woman who is aggressive should not be automatically praised—or criticized—because she is a woman.

A man who is empathetic should not be considered less masculine.

A CEO should be evaluated according to whether they build an effective organization, not according to whether they embody masculine or feminine stereotypes.

The Bigger Question

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Zuckerberg debate is that it forces society to reconsider what we actually mean by masculinity and femininity.

Leadership does not need to become feminine.

It does not need to become masculine either.

It needs to become human.

The best organizations require different personalities and different approaches. They need people capable of competing and people capable of collaborating. They need boldness and caution. Confidence and humility. Aggression when appropriate—and empathy when necessary.

The danger begins when one side becomes culturally superior.

Mark Zuckerberg’s comments may therefore be remembered less as a statement about men and women than as part of a much larger cultural conflict over the future of work.

The question isn’t whether corporations need more masculine energy.

The question is:

Who gets to define what successful leadership looks like—and who gets left behind when that definition becomes too narrow?

And if history has taught us anything, it is that workplaces are never truly neutral. The values we reward shape who rises, who stays silent, who leaves—and ultimately, who gets to sit at the table.