In a world that champions gender equality, why are women still being told how to lead?
The self-help industry is booming with advice on how women should 'lean into' their feminine energy.
Are we into a new form of empowerment or confinement?
Just a few days away from March, the month dedicated to celebrating women, we thought it is the perfect time to critically examine the growing discourse around "male" and "female" energies.
Across self-help literature, leadership coaching, business magazines, and social media, the idea that men and women should operate within distinct energetic realms has gained momentum. Women, we are told, should harness their "feminine energy" in leadership roles and just about anywhere else, avoiding traits associated with masculinity, such as unapologetic assertiveness, demanding directness, or strategic aggression. Men, conversely, are encouraged to embrace a balance of energies but are still expected to lead from their "masculine core."
These teachings claim to help individuals align with their "true nature," but do they actually empower women, or do they subtly reinforce outdated gender roles under the guise of balance?
Proponents of masculine and feminine energy theories describe them as fundamental forces influencing behavior, leadership styles, and relationships. According to various self-development schools, the following traits define these energies:
• Receptive, intuitive, and nurturing
• Flowing, creative, and emotionally expressive
• Collaborative, community-driven, and empathetic
• Focused on inner wisdom, magnetism, and patience
In many teachings, feminine energy is further divided into four archetypes, each representing a different aspect of womanhood:
1. The Girl (Maiden): Is playful, lighthearted, spontaneous, and embodies youthful curiosity. The girl enjoys butterflies (metaphorically speaking) and presents. She needs someone to take care of her, which gives others the pleasure to please.
2. The Lover (Mistress): Is sensual, passionate, and confident in her allure and desirability. The Lover seeks attention, can be fiery, and embraces her sexuality.
3. The Queen: Is regal, strategic, and wise, embodying leadership and decision-making skills. She demands respect and knows well what she wants. The Queen is not interested so much in emotional expressions but rather in progress, outcomes, and bottom lines. She can fire and hire.
4. The Mother (Woman): Is nurturing, caring, and deeply connected to creation and emotional support. She often puts others’ needs before hers. She is grounded, steady, and balanced.
In line with this framework is the corresponding equivalent for men.
• Assertive, logical, and goal-oriented
• Structured, disciplined, and action-driven
• Independent, protective, and competitive
• Focused on achievement, strategy, and control
Following the same strucure as the one proposed for women, men, are also categorised under four main archetypes.
1. The Warrior: Protective, courageous, disciplined, and strong in adversity. He is fast, full of energy, active, and proactive. A go-getter, not afraid of conflict.
2. The Magician: Intellectual, analytical, and a seeker of deeper knowledge and wisdom. The magician focuses intensely and requires peace to immerse himself in his world.
3. The King: A leader, provider, and visionary who governs with authority and purpose. The leader is passionate about the companies he leads and the next levels he can reach. He is calm, steady, and self-sufficient to a large extent.
4. The Lover: Emotionally connected, compassionate, and attuned to pleasure and relationships. He values deeper bonds, expresses emotions, and embraces his sexuality.
Various alternatives exist (for instance 1/ Commander, 2/ Merchant and Teacher, 3/ Artist-Poet, and 4/ Scientist) – but regardless of nuances, they are embraced and frequently used in self-development programs, relationship coaching, and even corporate leadership training. Courses and books promoting them argue that balancing these energies within oneself leads to personal fulfillment and success.
The idea of masculine and feminine energies is deeply rooted in Eastern philosophy, particularly Taoist and yogic traditions. The yin-yang concept in Chinese philosophy describes complementary forces - yin as receptive, soft, and intuitive, and yang as active, aggressive, and structured. Similarly, yogic traditions discuss Shiva (masculine consciousness) and Shakti (feminine creative power). However, these were not originally gendered constructs but rather expressions of duality present in all beings.
Fast forward to modern self-help culture, and these ideas have been reinterpreted in a way that assigns specific behaviors to genders. The notion that a female leader should lead through "grace, intuition, and nurturing qualities" while avoiding head-on confrontation or results-driven decisive action is not just limiting but also ignores historical evidence of female strength in strategy, wisdom, and war.
From a neurological and psychological standpoint, there is little empirical evidence that behaviours or leadership styles are biologically preordained based on gender. Studies from Harvard Business Review and McKinsey & Co. have found that the most effective leaders - regardless of gender - display a balance of traditionally "masculine" and "feminine" traits. In addition, a 2021 study published in Psychological Science analysed thousands of leaders across industries and also confirmed that successful leaders tend to exhibit both warmth and dominance. Likewise, a meta-analysis from Science Advances (2022) concluded that leadership effectiveness is not significantly impacted by gender but rather by adaptability and context-based decision-making.
The Jungian and archetypal psychology and polarity theory can perhaps explain the notion in full. Or maybe we need to look at neuroscience and the fact that even the brain is split into two hemispheres - each responsible for different functions - some more "feminine" and some more "masculine"? If that doesn't satisfy us enough, we can throw in the heavy artillery in the form of quantum mechanics and systems theory where the duality chaos-order and particles-waves demonstrate the fundamental making of the Universe.
However, none of these fields and their findings, regardless if they are closely related to or merely a metaphor for the "feminine-masculine" energies, talk about aligning to one particular mode of being. They are all about exchange and flexibility in change.
Think of a client of ours, whom we'll call Mary. Mary is an exceptional professional in her field. Dedicated. Strong-willed. Passionate about what she does. Mary became one of the youngest to ever get promoted to her level in an extremely traditional and hierarchical industry. Outside of work, she trains her body regularly. She rides a motorbike. She loves painting her nails and cares about her friends deeply. She is a good daughter, sister, and aunt. She is giving and selfless. She values honesty, bravery, and camaraderie. She is kind and loves hunting.
Societal messages tell her she needs to be more fragile, gentle, accepting of help, slim, and gracious. If she doesn't live by her "core feminine energy," she will be punished by the Universe for not obeying the main principles. This means any struggle she faces with love, life, or business would likely be due to her not using the energies right. As a result, Mary questions her looks and attractiveness, her grace, her qualities as a woman, her thoughts, and emotions. Something that hasn't been such a strong part of her experiences before the energy narrative emerged.
What do you think about that?
The discourse on masculine and feminine energies has taken root in various cultural contexts worldwide. In Russia, teachings by figures like Larisa Renar emphasize the importance of women embodying specific archetypes to harness their full potential. In India, the concept of Shakti represents divine feminine energy, essential to creation and transformation. Islamic mysticism, particularly Sufism, views feminine energy as integral to spiritual growth and connection with the divine.
Meanwhile, in North America and Europe, self-help and spiritual movements have adapted these ideas to emphasize personal growth, often integrating yin-yang philosophy from Chinese traditions. Retreat centers and coaching programs dedicated to balancing masculine and feminine energies have flourished, with over 4,500 such programs globally, including significant numbers in the U.S., Spain, Mexico, and Peru, to name a few.
While these teachings promise self-awareness and empowerment, they also risk reinforcing expectations, subtly dictating how individuals should behave based on their perceived energy alignment. Specifically, the push for women to "stay in their feminine energy" may seem empowering at first glance, but it subtly dictates how they should behave, feel, and advocate for themselves.
When women are told they should attract success through magnetism rather than assertiveness,
or that they should "flow" instead of strategizing aggressively,
it reinforces an age-old expectation that power should look different on them.
Today’s trends, wrapped in modern self-help language, bear an eerie resemblance to the ‘separate spheres’ ideology of the 19th century, where women were confined to the domestic realm.
History itself contradicts this notion.
If "feminine energy" is defined as being mostly gentle, patient, nurturing, and receptive, where do figures like Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom and war, fit in? Was Athena not in her "feminine energy" enough when she outwitted Ares on the battlefield? Were Boudicca, Cleopatra, or Joan of Arc leading from their "masculine" side wrongly, or were they simply embodying the full spectrum of human capability?
In XXI century work context, the energy narrative is dangerously contributing to societal conditioning that leads women to internalize the belief that ambition, “going all in”, "husting" or “working as a machine” (popular terms that reached peak of use about two decades ago) - contradicts femininity. This in turn fosters self-doubt and hesitation not only in pursuing leadership positions but in how to act and be in those positions, once already there.
We see this first-hand in coaching and therapy sessions with great female leaders and high-performers who are being judged for not being "enough in their female energy" and who in turn begin to question their value, their motives, their right to success and happiness.
On top of that, we must not turn a blind eye to the fact that female leaders continue to frequently face evaluation through the lens of likability rather than competence. Many studies have shown that women are judged much more harshly than their male counterparts at work, with a focus on their interpersonal traits over their professional abilities. This bias is here to stay, and coupled with the promotion of “female energy expectations”, not only undermines women's achievements but also perpetuates the stereotype that leadership, success, and wealth are inherently masculine.
The message this time is perhaps more subtle compared to what our mothers and grandmothers have been subjected to in the past - dictating what there place and capablities should be, and how they should behave and feel. We'd like to believe that the energy based narrative is also well-intentioned and maybe part of the natural evolution.
So it is important to ask Why?
Despite decades of feminist progress advocating for gender equality, the resurgence of teachings on masculine and feminine energy raises critical questions: Why are these ideas gaining traction now? Why, after so much effort to dismantle gendered expectations, are we seeing a push for women to "return" to their femininity in prescribed ways?
One psychological explanation lies in the concept of Ambivalent Sexism, which includes both hostile and benevolent forms. While hostile sexism is overtly discriminatory, benevolent sexism appears positive and protective, celebrating traditional feminine qualities like nurturance and cooperation. These energy teachings often fall under the latter, subtly reinforcing the idea that women are at their best when they align with preordained feminine traits.
Additionally, cognitive load theory suggests that in times of uncertainty or societal change, people gravitate toward structured, simplistic frameworks that offer a sense of order. The modern world presents complex demands for both men and women, and rather than embracing the fluidity of human behavior, many find comfort in clear-cut guidelines that promise success through gendered energy alignment.
Social media and the self-help industry also play a significant role. The rise of influencers and coaches selling femininity courses and "divine feminine" teachings has created a commercialized version of empowerment—one that subtly dictates who women should be rather than allowing them to define it for themselves.
Ultimately, the growing appeal of these teachings reflects both a societal longing for balance
and a resistance to the complexities of gender equality.
While the language of energies may sound progressive, it risks pulling us a little backwards.
Instead of subscribing to energy labels, how about we focus on what truly drives success: competence, confidence, and authenticity.
And What if the only energy that mattered was your own?
Some of the most effective female leaders in history have been both nurturing and ruthless, intuitive and analytical. Let's not strip both men and women of their full potential by labeling their strengths as "masculine" or "feminine"? And, instead of asking women to "lead like a woman" or men to "stay in their masculine core," perhaps the real question should be: What makes crave fitting human complexity into neat boxes? If the goddesses of myth could wield wisdom and war with equal mastery, why should modern women be expected to do any less?
As we celebrate women this March, let’s challenge the conversation around energy and gender. Let's not hide behind the aim for "balance" or even behind physics where each + needs a -. Instead, when it comes to life, love and career, continue reassuring girls of all ages that they can and should show up in the world on their own terms – unshackled from another framework dictating what it means to be "truly feminine", truly you.