Lean Out

Lean Out Plot Summary

Introduction

The modern corporate world presents a paradox for women: the more they're told to lean into their careers and adopt traditionally male behaviors, the further they may drift from what actually brings them fulfillment. This penetrating analysis challenges conventional wisdom about female success in corporate America, examining how current narratives about the gender gap have failed both women and businesses. Rather than accepting standard explanations that blame women's behavior or socialization for their underrepresentation in leadership positions, this work explores how systemic problems inherent in corporate structures create barriers for diverse talent. Through a thoughtful examination of research studies, workplace dynamics, and personal experiences, we journey through an eye-opening exploration of power, cognitive bias, and organizational design. By questioning long-held assumptions about what drives career success and why gender imbalances persist despite decades of efforts to address them, we uncover deeper truths about human motivation and well-being. The insights presented offer a new framework for understanding diversity challenges, leading to practical suggestions for creating more inclusive environments where people can contribute their full range of capabilities without sacrificing authenticity.

Chapter 1: Challenging Conventional Gender Narratives in Corporate America

Corporate America has long been dominated by a singular chorus of voices when it comes to gender equality. These voices, often belonging to powerful women who have successfully broken through the glass ceiling, promote a specific set of ideas about why women aren't advancing at the same rate as men. The narrative typically falls along these lines: women are afraid to speak up; they are punished for being bossy or assertive; they struggle with work-life balance; they lack confidence; they don't negotiate effectively. The homogeneity of this narrative wouldn't necessarily be problematic if other perspectives were included in the mix, but alternative viewpoints are consistently sidelined. This narrow perspective can be understood through the parable of "The Blind Men and the Elephant," where each man touches a different part of the elephant and comes to a completely different conclusion about what the animal looks like. Similarly, our collective understanding of the gender gap has been defined by those who see only one aspect of a complex issue. The experiences of women who are still looking up at the glass ceiling from far below are rarely represented in mainstream conversations, despite the fact that they constitute the vast majority of working women. The problem with this limited viewpoint is that it directs efforts toward issues that may affect only a small subset of women while ignoring challenges that are more common and perhaps more troublesome. For instance, while some women might indeed suffer penalties for being assertive, many others face entirely different obstacles—like being bullied by senior women who feel threatened, or feeling overwhelmed by household responsibilities on top of work demands. Yet these concerns rarely make it into the public discourse on female empowerment. Furthermore, the current framing of the gender gap places the blame squarely on women's shoulders. The underlying assumption is that women need to change—to be more assertive, ambitious, and demanding—in order to succeed. This approach pins the responsibility for change on individual women rather than examining the structures and systems that create barriers in the first place. It also implicitly suggests that traditional male behaviors are the norm and inherently more valuable, which is both inaccurate and demeaning to women's diverse strengths. The consequences of this narrow framing are significant. Despite decades of efforts to promote more women into power—through leadership training, mentorship programs, and diversity initiatives—the numbers have barely budged. Female CEOs at Fortune 500 companies have gone from 0% in 1972 to just 4.8% today, and the wage gap has narrowed only slightly from about 73% in 1998 to about 80% in 2018. This glacial pace of progress suggests that conventional approaches are missing the mark, and a fresh perspective is urgently needed. What's required is a more comprehensive view of the elephant—one that takes into account the experiences of all women, not just those who have made it to the top. By expanding the conversation to include diverse voices and perspectives, we can develop more effective strategies for creating truly inclusive workplaces where everyone has the opportunity to succeed on their own terms.

Chapter 2: The Leadership Ambition Gap Myth and Female Aspirations

The concept of the "leadership ambition gap" has become a cornerstone of conventional wisdom regarding the gender imbalance in corporate leadership. This theory suggests that women are less likely to aspire to senior roles because cultural conditioning has taught them to be less ambitious than men. According to this view, society rewards women for being warm, polite, and nurturing while punishing them for exhibiting traditionally male leadership qualities like assertiveness and ambition. Over time, this socialization supposedly leads women to mute their aspirations and become less interested in leadership positions. However, this framework contains several problematic assumptions. First, it implies that women's stated preferences and choices are not to be trusted—that they are merely the product of cultural brainwashing rather than authentic desires. When research consistently shows that women express less interest in becoming corporate executives, advocates of the leadership ambition gap theory dismiss these findings as evidence of how deeply ingrained gender stereotypes have become. This dismissal of women's expressed desires is not only condescending but also prevents us from addressing the real issues at hand. A McKinsey study titled "Women in the Workplace" found that the top reasons both men and women cited for not wanting to be senior executives were remarkably similar: concerns about work-life balance (42% for both genders), too much office politics (around 40% for both), and lack of interest in that type of work (around 36% for both). These reasons seem perfectly reasonable and pragmatic rather than the result of cultural conditioning. Interestingly, 36% of men desire a C-level position versus 18% of women—which means the majority of both genders don't aspire to these roles. This raises an important question: shouldn't we be examining what might be wrong with these positions rather than what's wrong with the people who don't want them? Another critical aspect often overlooked in the leadership ambition gap discourse is the "domestic ambition gap"—the expectation that women will handle the majority of household and childcare responsibilities regardless of their professional commitments. Women who work full-time are typically still the primary caregivers at home and do a disproportionate amount of domestic work. Yet efforts to encourage men to "lean in" more at home have been conspicuously absent from public conversations. The focus remains relentlessly on changing women's behavior in the workplace while ignoring the complementary changes needed in domestic arrangements. This asymmetry reveals a deeper issue with the leadership ambition gap theory: it defines success exclusively on male terms. Leadership is equated with corporate executive positions, which represent just one particular type of influence and impact. Many women may be exercising leadership in different contexts or pursuing different kinds of goals that don't align with traditional corporate hierarchies. By narrowly defining success as climbing the corporate ladder, we devalue the diverse ways in which women (and men) might choose to contribute and find fulfillment. The leadership ambition gap theory ultimately fails because it attempts to explain complex human decisions through a single lens. It dismisses the multifaceted considerations that influence career choices and reduces women's agency by suggesting they don't really know what they want. A more productive approach would recognize the validity of different aspirations and focus on creating systems that accommodate diverse preferences and strengths rather than forcing everyone into the same mold.

Chapter 3: How Confidence is Misunderstood in the Workplace

The "confidence gap" theory has gained significant traction in discussions about gender inequality in the workplace. According to this view, women suffer from lower levels of confidence compared to men, which leads them to underestimate their abilities, hesitate to seize opportunities, and negotiate less effectively for raises and promotions. This purported lack of confidence is cited as a major reason why women fail to break through the glass ceiling in numbers proportionate to their representation in the workforce. However, this theory suffers from a fundamental problem: it lacks a clear, consistent definition of what confidence actually is. In "The Confidence Code," authors Katty Kay and Claire Shipman struggle to provide a precise definition, eventually settling on confidence as "the stuff that turns thought into action." This vague characterization makes it difficult to meaningfully assess whether women truly lack confidence or whether their behaviors are being misinterpreted through a biased lens. When we examine the anecdotes and examples used to illustrate the confidence gap, a concerning pattern emerges. Behaviors that might reflect thoughtfulness, empathy, or careful consideration are routinely labeled as "lack of confidence." For instance, when a woman hesitates during a presentation because she's trying to gauge the audience's reaction, this is interpreted as insecurity rather than attentiveness to others. When women acknowledge uncertainty in areas where uncertainty is warranted, this is seen as a weakness rather than intellectual honesty. A more robust definition of confidence comes from psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, whose pioneering work on self-esteem offers valuable insights. According to Branden, true confidence means trusting oneself—one's ability to think, learn, make appropriate choices, and respond effectively to change. Importantly, confident people feel comfortable hesitating when they're genuinely uncertain; they don't feel threatened by not having all the answers. Confidence requires an honest relationship with oneself and reality, not a false sense of certainty. From this perspective, many behaviors commonly interpreted as female insecurity might actually reflect higher levels of self-awareness and intellectual integrity. Conversely, the bluster and unwarranted certainty often mistaken for confidence—behaviors that tend to be more common among men—might actually indicate its absence. As Branden explains, those with little trust in their abilities often overcompensate by feigning certainty and dominance, precisely because they fear being exposed as inadequate. The notion that confidence is strongly correlated with career success is also questionable. The McKinsey study mentioned earlier found that among both men and women who didn't want to be top executives, only 13% cited lack of confidence as a reason—suggesting this factor plays a relatively minor role in career decisions for both genders. Furthermore, research on negotiation shows that when women advocate for others rather than themselves, they often outperform men. This suggests that the issue isn't a general lack of confidence but rather specific contextual factors that affect how assertiveness is received and rewarded. By mistakenly equating confidence with stereotypically male behaviors, organizations end up valuing traits that don't necessarily correlate with competence or effectiveness. This misunderstanding does a disservice to everyone by rewarding style over substance and reinforcing a narrow model of leadership that excludes diverse talents and approaches. A more nuanced understanding of confidence—one that recognizes its manifestation across different personality types and cultural expressions—would contribute to more inclusive and high-performing workplaces.

Chapter 4: System Bias vs. Gender Bias in Corporate Structures

Corporate structures were not designed with diversity in mind. They were created by men, for men, during an era when women were largely absent from the workforce. These systems evolved to serve an industrial economy where output was tangible and measurable—a worker either assembled twenty widgets per hour or didn't. In this context, hierarchy and formal authority made sense as organizing principles. But today's knowledge economy operates under entirely different conditions, with dramatically different requirements for success. In modern workplaces, output is largely abstract and intangible. Most employees solve problems, build strategies, write code, manage relationships, and create content—activities whose value can be difficult to quantify objectively. This intangibility creates a fundamental challenge: how do we evaluate performance when the results aren't immediately visible or concrete? When it's hard to measure actual contribution and impact, we tend to rely on proxies—observable behaviors and traits that we assume correlate with competence and leadership ability. The problem is that human beings are notoriously bad at objectively evaluating others. Our cognitive biases lead us to make significant errors in judgment, particularly when dealing with complex, ambiguous situations. One powerful bias is our preference for what's visible and salient. In the absence of clear metrics, we give more weight to behaviors we can easily observe: assertiveness, self-promotion, confidence (or the appearance of it), and dominance displays. Research consistently shows that people who talk more frequently and dominantly in meetings are perceived as more influential, regardless of the quality of their contributions. Physical attributes like height and even facial width have been correlated with perceptions of competence and leadership potential. These visible traits and behaviors don't correlate strongly with actual competence or effectiveness, but they do correlate more highly with men. Men are more likely to speak up in meetings, interrupt others, display confidence even when uncertain, and assert their authority. This creates a system bias that advantages typically male behaviors not because they're inherently superior, but simply because they're more noticeable in environments characterized by ambiguity. By contrast, traits that are more common among women—empathy, careful listening, collaboration, humility, and thoughtful deliberation—are less immediately visible and therefore systematically undervalued. A woman who takes time to consider all perspectives before making a decision might be perceived as indecisive, while a man who makes quick, bold pronouncements is seen as decisive and authoritative—even if the woman's approach ultimately leads to better outcomes. This system bias manifests in concrete ways throughout organizational processes. Performance evaluations, promotion decisions, and talent assessments all suffer from the same fundamental flaw: they reward what's visible over what's valuable. The "calibration" meetings where employee performance is ranked and discussed become competitive arenas where managers fight for their direct reports, with the most aggressive and politically savvy managers often winning regardless of their team members' actual contributions. The distinction between system bias and gender bias is crucial. While explicit gender discrimination certainly exists, much of what holds women back in corporate environments is not deliberate bias against women per se, but rather systems that inherently favor traits and behaviors more commonly found in men. This explains why decades of diversity training and unconscious bias awareness efforts have yielded disappointing results—they focus on changing individual attitudes rather than addressing the fundamental design flaws in organizational systems. Solving this problem requires rethinking how we evaluate and reward performance in knowledge-based organizations. Instead of trying to change women to better fit existing systems, we need to redesign those systems to better capture and value the full spectrum of contributions that diverse employees make.

Chapter 5: The Truth About Power Dynamics and Success Metrics

The concept of power lies at the heart of corporate advancement, yet its nature is frequently misunderstood in discussions about gender equality. Traditional narratives define power primarily as formal authority—the ability to control others through one's position in a hierarchy. This narrow definition has led to the mistaken belief that women simply need to pursue and acquire more of this type of power to achieve equality with men. However, this overlooks crucial differences in how power manifests and how men and women relate to it. Research consistently shows that men and women experience power differently. A study in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior found that men with authority to hire and fire were happier than men without such authority, while women with similar authority were less happy than women without it. This isn't because women are uncomfortable with power per se, but because the specific type of power conferred by corporate hierarchies—control over others—tends to align better with typically male motivations and preferences. Power actually takes two primary forms: authority and influence. Authority is formal power granted by position, while influence is power that requires consent and is cultivated through relationships and trust. These two forms aren't superior or inferior to each other—they're complementary forces that serve different purposes in different contexts. However, in corporate settings, authority is typically the only form of power that's formally recognized and rewarded through promotions and advancement. This creates a fundamental misalignment for many women, who often derive more satisfaction from influence than authority. Studies show that women are generally more motivated by forming close relationships and achieving positive outcomes through collaboration rather than competition. When women find themselves in environments that primarily reward authority and competitive behaviors, their motivation and engagement naturally decrease—not because they lack ambition, but because the rewards don't align with what they find meaningful and fulfilling. The competitive nature of corporate hierarchies further exacerbates this misalignment. In most organizations, advancement is structured as a zero-sum game: for one person to win a promotion, others must lose. Research demonstrates that competitive environments have dramatically different effects on men and women. Men typically become more collaborative and interdependent when competition is introduced, while women often become less so. Women tend to perform better and even outperform men in collaborative environments, but falter when forced to compete directly against colleagues. This difference isn't a reflection of inherent female weakness but rather of different approaches to power. In female-dominated primate societies like bonobo communities, females don't gain power by mimicking male displays of aggression. Instead, they build strong relationships with each other, and it's these relationships that become the source of their collective power. Similarly, human women often excel at building networks of mutual support and cooperation, as evidenced by the strength of female friendships and communities in many contexts outside the corporate world. Corporate success metrics further compound the problem by focusing almost exclusively on individual achievement and advancement up the hierarchy. When progress is measured solely by the percentage of women in executive roles, we implicitly accept the notion that these roles represent the only legitimate form of success. This narrow definition disregards the many other ways people might define fulfillment and contribution in their professional lives. A more inclusive approach would recognize diverse forms of power and success, offering multiple pathways for advancement that align with different motivations and strengths. This might include creating senior individual contributor roles with equivalent compensation to management positions, designing collaborative work structures with shared accountability and rewards, and measuring success in terms of team outcomes rather than individual visibility. By expanding our understanding of power beyond the traditional male template, organizations can tap into the full range of human potential and create environments where everyone can thrive.

Chapter 6: Reframing Success: Well-Being Over Traditional Achievement

The current metrics used to evaluate gender equality focus almost exclusively on money and power—the percentage of women in executive positions, the gender wage gap, and representation on corporate boards. These measurements reflect a narrow definition of success that may not align with what many women (or men) actually want from their careers and lives. This misalignment creates a fundamental problem: we're trying to solve the wrong equation. Money and power are merely tools for achieving the larger goal of well-being, not ends in themselves. Well-being encompasses far more than professional status or income; it includes autonomy, meaningful work, supportive relationships, work-life balance, and psychological safety. When we measure progress solely through the lens of corporate advancement and income parity, we implicitly suggest that these are the only worthwhile aspirations, regardless of their impact on overall quality of life. This narrow focus can lead to counterproductive outcomes. For instance, closing the wage gap by encouraging women to pursue higher-paying careers in finance or technology might statistically look like progress. However, if these roles require sacrifices in other areas that matter deeply to many women—such as flexibility, collaborative work environments, or time for family and personal pursuits—the net effect on well-being might actually be negative. Success becomes a pyrrhic victory if it requires abandoning core values and authentic desires. The problem is compounded by cultural narratives that tell us who we should be and what we should want. From Lean In to Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office, popular business literature offers prescriptive advice that often assumes all women share the same goals and face the same obstacles. These narratives become mental traps when followed blindly, leading people to pursue paths that don't align with their true values and strengths. A more empowering approach would measure success in terms of well-being rather than conformity to external standards. This requires honest self-reflection about individual needs and motivations. Different people have different emotional needs across categories like security, power, freedom, and connection. Some might have a high need for freedom and autonomy but a low need for power and control over others. Others might prioritize security and stability over the opportunity to make bold moves with uncertain outcomes. Understanding these individual differences is critical for making career decisions that enhance rather than diminish well-being. Someone with a high need for freedom might negotiate for flexible working arrangements rather than a promotion that comes with more responsibility but less autonomy. A person with a high need for connection might prioritize finding a supportive team culture over maximizing income. These choices aren't signs of reduced ambition but rather of self-awareness and authentic decision-making. Organizations also benefit from adopting a well-being perspective. Research consistently shows that employee engagement and productivity are closely tied to well-being factors like recognition, autonomy, and psychological safety. According to the Gallup organization, only 13% of employees worldwide are engaged at work, with the rest classified as either "not engaged" or "actively disengaged." This represents an enormous waste of human potential and organizational resources. Companies that design systems to support well-being—by offering diverse career paths, flexible work arrangements, and recognition programs tailored to individual preferences—stand to gain significant competitive advantages through increased innovation, retention, and performance. Reframing success around well-being doesn't mean abandoning goals related to gender equality in the workplace. Rather, it means pursuing equality in ways that genuinely serve the diverse needs and aspirations of all women, not just those who fit a particular template of ambition. By measuring what truly matters—the extent to which work enhances rather than diminishes quality of life—we can create more meaningful and sustainable progress toward gender equality.

Chapter 7: A New Way Forward: Designing Systems for Diverse Talent

Creating truly inclusive workplaces requires more than changing individual behaviors or attitudes—it demands fundamental redesign of organizational systems. Current corporate structures were built by men, for men, during an industrial era when workforce demographics and economic requirements were dramatically different from today's reality. These systems have remained essentially unchanged despite massive transformations in the nature of work and the composition of the workforce. The first critical element in system redesign is establishing conditions that foster truth and trust. Most corporate environments are characterized by political maneuvering, impression management, and selective truth-telling—behaviors encouraged by competitive, zero-sum reward structures. This lack of psychological safety prevents people from being authentic and contributing their full range of capabilities. Google's research on team effectiveness found that psychological safety—the ability to take risks without feeling insecure or embarrassed—was the single most important factor in determining team success, outweighing even combined individual talent. Building psychological safety requires balancing power more effectively. In most organizations, power is highly concentrated at the top, with few meaningful checks and balances. This concentration not only enables abuses of power but also leads to poor decision-making as leaders become insulated from critical feedback and diverse perspectives. Creating structured mechanisms for employee input, independent assessment of management effectiveness, and protection for those who speak truth to power would significantly improve both equality and organizational performance. Another crucial aspect of system redesign involves diversifying rewards beyond the singular focus on authority and advancement up the hierarchy. Research shows that recognition—acknowledging and showing appreciation for contributions—is actually more motivating than traditional incentives like promotions for many employees. Yet 83% of organizations suffer from a recognition deficit according to Forbes research. Companies that build "recognition-rich cultures" experience 31% lower voluntary turnover and significantly higher engagement. Offering flexible career paths that accommodate different motivations and life circumstances represents another important system change. The traditional corporate ladder assumes everyone wants to climb in the same direction, with each rung bringing more responsibility for managing others. Creating lattice-like structures with multiple paths for advancement—including senior individual contributor roles with compensation equivalent to management positions—would allow diverse talents to find fulfillment without forcing everyone into the same mold. Performance evaluation systems require particular attention, as they currently suffer from extreme subjectivity and bias toward visible behaviors over actual impact. The forced distribution of performance ratings ("stacking" or "calibration") inevitably creates internal competition and undermines collaboration. More objective assessment methods could include blind evaluation of work products where feasible, clearly defined outcome metrics agreed upon in advance, and multi-source feedback that captures diverse perspectives on contribution. Management practices themselves need significant overhaul. The near-absolute power of managers over their subordinates creates conditions ripe for abuse and favoritism. Google's Upward Feedback Survey, which allows employees to anonymously evaluate their managers, represents one step toward accountability. However, these mechanisms must have real consequences to be effective—bad managers should not continue to be promoted despite poor leadership skills simply because they excel at managing upward. Perhaps most fundamentally, organizations need to design for innovation and adaptation rather than control and predictability. The capacity to experiment, learn from failure, and continuously improve is essential in today's rapidly changing environment. Yet most corporate systems punish risk-taking and reinforce status quo thinking. Creating safe spaces for experimentation, formalizing processes for learning from failures rather than assigning blame, and rewarding thoughtful innovation would help organizations tap into the full creative potential of their diverse workforce. These system changes benefit everyone, not just women. Men too suffer from rigid expectations, political environments, and dehumanizing management practices. By designing organizations that value diverse contributions, provide multiple paths to success, and treat people as whole human beings rather than interchangeable parts, we can create workplaces where everyone has the opportunity to thrive while delivering superior results for the business.

Summary

The modern corporate landscape operates on a fundamental misunderstanding about gender, power, and success. Rather than acknowledging diverse values and strengths, conventional wisdom has pushed a singular narrative: women must change themselves—becoming more assertive, confident, and ambitious—to succeed in systems designed by and for men. This approach has failed not because women are incapable of changing, but because it addresses the wrong problem. The gender gap persists not due to women's deficiencies but because of deeply flawed systems that narrowly reward traits and behaviors more common among men while systematically undervaluing equally important contributions that women often excel at providing. A new approach requires reframing success around well-being rather than conformity to external standards, and redesigning organizations to leverage diverse talents instead of forcing everyone into the same mold. This means creating environments of psychological safety where people can be authentic, balancing power more effectively through meaningful checks and accountability, diversifying rewards beyond hierarchical advancement, and developing more objective ways to evaluate performance. These changes would benefit everyone—not just women—by fostering innovation, increasing engagement, and allowing all individuals to contribute their unique strengths. By leaning out of restrictive narratives about who we should be and how success should look, we can create workplaces that truly serve human flourishing while delivering superior results for organizations brave enough to challenge the status quo.

About Author

Loading...

Marissa Orr

Read more