In corporate boardrooms, decisions often hinge on numbers and performance metrics. Yet, could something as seemingly superficial as a CEO’s facial or vocal features influence their job security? Our study, recently published in the Journal of Management Studies, reveals that CEO facial and vocal masculinity—features that evoke trait perceptions of dominance, aggression, and risk-taking—can indeed shape a board’s decision to dismiss a CEO. This begs the question: How can such high-stakes decisions be swayed by a CEO’s facial and vocal characteristics? Aren’t boards expected to remain objective and immune to such biases? 

The Evolutionary Roots of Masculinity Bias in Leadership 

The perception of masculinity in leaders has deep evolutionary roots. Physical features like a broad face or deep voice have been argued to have once accurately signaled behaviors of dominance and aggression in individuals, qualities valued in ancestral times when survival often depended on competitive ability. In cooperative and diplomatic contexts, however, such traits hindered group survival. This dichotomy has ingrained in us a sensitivity to perceiving leadership traits from individuals’ facial and vocal features and their fit with different situational needs. 

Today, while facial and vocal features don’t determine nor indicate an individual’s actual leadership ability, these biases persist and continue to shape our perceptions. We hypothesize that in the modern corporate world, CEOs who possess masculine facial and vocal features may be seen as overly aggressive or risk-prone—qualities that may not align with most organizational contexts. As a result, we propose that boards are more likely to dismiss CEOs that they believe possess such masculine attributes, especially when they appear to misalign with a firms’ performance situation. For instance, if a company is thriving and seeking external growth opportunities with partners, a board might perceive these dominant traits as discordant with the firm’s needs, thereby increasing the likelihood of dismissal. Conversely, in times of poor performance, a more aggressive, dominant approach might seem beneficial and necessary for rectifying the firm’s deteriorating performance situation, thereby decreasing the likelihood of dismissal for masculine CEOs. 

The Double-Edged Sword of Masculine Leadership 

Analyzing a dataset of male CEOs from S&P 1500 firms, we found that CEOs with more masculine facial and vocal features face a notably higher risk of dismissal, even when firm performance is accounted for. Interestingly, CEO masculinity interacts with firm performance in a unique way. When performance declines, boards increasingly view masculine traits as less costly, hoping these CEOs will drive aggressive changes. This perception lowers dismissal risk and can even protect the CEO from dismissal as performance deteriorates further and tends towards the extremes. However, as performance improves, these same traits can backfire. Under such conditions, boards may seek leaders with qualities they perceive as more cooperative and socially attuned, increasing the dismissal risk for masculine CEOs. 

This creates a “double-edged sword” for CEOs with masculine features. In challenging times, their assertive qualities may be advantageous. But in periods of average and high success, these traits might seem unnecessary or misaligned with the company’s trajectory, making dismissal more probable. 

Implications for CEOs and Boards 

This research challenges the view that CEO dismissal is solely a function of firm performance, underscoring how perceptions of masculinity—evoked from a CEO’s facial and vocal features—can bias dismissal decisions. Masculine CEOs may face heightened dismissal risks, not because of their performance, but due to how their traits are viewed in varying business contexts. 

For boards, this serves as a caution. By unconsciously being influenced by biases linked to masculinity and leadership, boards risk dismissing capable leaders based on perceived misalignments with current needs rather than actual performance. Conversely, they might retain a CEO who seems to fit a situational need but lacks broader leadership qualities essential for long-term success. 

A Path Forward: Reducing Bias in Leadership Decisions 

Our study suggests that boards should acknowledge their potential biases toward CEO masculinity. By becoming aware of these biases, boards can make more balanced, objective decisions that prioritize a CEO’s real abilities and performance over superficial traits. As businesses navigate increasingly complex landscapes, recognizing how subconscious biases influence leadership decisions will be critical for appointing the right leaders. This research offers a fresh perspective on CEO-board dynamics, particularly in high-stakes dismissal decisions.