It all began with a letter by a top Army officer that was “leaked” to social media. Lieutenant General Rajeev Puri wrote to Eastern Army Commander Chief Lieutenant General R.C. Tiwari, criticising eight women commanding officers (COs): “During the last one year, there has been an increase in the number of officer management issues in units commanded by women officers. These are indicative of serious concerns regarding interpersonal relations. Most cases pertain to a lack of tact and understanding of the personal requirements of unit personnel, especially officers. The emphasis is more on conflict termination through might rather than conflict resolution through mutual respect. A prejudice and mistrust was evident in few of the cases in the recent past.”

Claiming that this had led to “high levels of stress” in the units, Lieutenant General Puri added that “an uncontrolled urge [on the part of the women COs] to make derogatory statements regarding juniors to usurp credit, rather than encouraging them, is routine”. He also called for a comprehensive policy on “gender neutrality” in the posting and promotion of officers.

Even as Lieutenant General Puri writes about “gender neutrality”, his own neutrality, based on his observation of eight women COs, is questionable at best. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Babita Puniya & Ors in 2020, the Indian Army granted women military officers permanent commission and deemed them eligible to hold command posts. The larger question, though, is whether our armed forces are indeed ready for women in leadership roles.

This article will critically examine two questions—whether men and women practise different leadership styles, and if there is such a thing as a subjective/gendered perception of leadership behaviour. In doing so, I also hope to show how gender stereotypes shape leadership models, perceptions, and critique.

The main accusations against the women COs in Lieutenant General Puri’s letter are “hunger for power”, insensitivity, lack of empathy, arrogance, egoism, poor interpersonal relations, a “my way or highway” attitude, “over-celebration of minor accomplishments”, “backbiting”, and a gap in training.

Also Read | Women officers in the Indian Army: A bastion breached

Leadership is not a neutral phenomenon; it is shaped by society’s gendered power relations. For centuries, ‘agentic’ leadership traits such as aggression, ambition, and dominance have been traditionally associated with men, while feminine stereotypes of affection, kindness, and sensitivity create obstacles for women leaders. This double bind forces women to either adopt masculine traits and be seen as unlikeable, or display feminine traits and be labelled as weak leaders. In the recent US Presidential election, Donald Trump frequently spoke disparagingly of his opponent Kamala Harris in his election campaign, even going so far as to say that she would be “like a play toy” for other world leaders if she were elected.

It is highly probable that the women COs in the armed forces face the same double bind. The armed forces structurally demand discipline and toughness. The same qualities in male leaders are seen as a mark of competence and efficiency. Women COs are likely to be under performance pressure, and this could well be the reason behind their agentic leadership styles.

For centuries, societies have perpetuated gender stereotypes, associating men with masculine traits while linking women to feminine characteristics. These stereotypes have severely impacted our perception of men and women in leadership roles. Dominant male leaders are seen as successful leaders; however, dominant female leaders are seen as egotistic, rude, and poor in interpersonal relations, as Puri’s letter noted. Women leaders in male-dominated working domains are thus significantly devalued compared to male leaders. 

The “double standards of competence” leadership model suggests that because historically men have had access to leadership roles, women leaders must be outstandingly qualified to succeed. Men may have more freedom to choose their preferred leadership style and still be considered more suitable or natural leaders. However, women must be more deliberate about adopting only the most effective leadership behaviour in order to prove their competence. It is not a surprise that well-qualified and able women leaders are mostly disliked.

Contrary to Lieutenant General Puri’s observation, research studies show that women are more transformational leaders as they focus on collaboration, empowerment, and team development, whereas men mostly demonstrate transactional leadership and are more focussed on abstract performance, growth, incentives, and penalties. In fact, training in soft skills and emotional intelligence are included in programmes that train men for leadership roles to address this very issue.

The glass cliff

Another interesting theoretical construct regarding gender and leadership that contradicts Lieutenant General Puri’s observations is the “glass cliff”. This concept suggests that women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions during tough times since they are believed to be more empathetic and have better interpersonal and collaboration skills. While the glass cliff may be seen as an opportunity to showcase effective leadership roles, it is a double-edged sword because leadership offered in hard times also holds a greater possibility of failure.

Leadership styles are not objective but result from personal skills, socialisation, and organisational settings. Deconstructing gender stereotypes in leadership evaluations is crucial for creating equal opportunities for all individuals. Research has shown that gender diversity in leadership improves organisational outcomes.

What Lieutenant General Puri’s letter has done is to essentialise leadership traits based on gender, especially in a sector such as the armed forces which opened its doors to women officers only recently.

This essentialisation is bound to cause distrust in women’s leadership, even though the number of women in leadership positions is continuously rising. It will also create hurdles in the opportunities and accessibility of leadership roles for women.

The Reykjavík Index for Leadership 2025 shows a continuing downward trend in perceptions of gender equality in leadership roles. This study, compiled annually from an annual survey, compares how men and women are viewed regarding their suitability for power positions.

Despite overall materialistic progress, studies show that it is still difficult for men to work with women leaders. The increase in the number of women in leadership positions threatens the established male supremacy in leadership roles and creates tension and fear of “outperformance” of women over men. 

As Julie Castro Abrams, CEO and chair of “How Women Lead”, a US-based network of women promoting diverse voices and leadership, points out: “We love to villainise women. It’s part of our culture.” Castro explains that when a high-profile woman leader fails, her failure is more frequently highlighted to prove the point that women should not be in leadership positions in the first place.

Lieutenant General Puri’s criticism of the tendency of women COs “to over-celebrate minor accomplishments, that may skew leadership dynamics and foster a need for constant validation”, only betrays his gender bias. 

The Indian Army’s first batch of 99 women military police trainees training at the Corps of Military Police in Bengaluru in March 2021.
| Photo Credit:
MURALI KUMAR K

There are many success stories of female-led projects. Sometimes, the small achievements of women leaders catch the attention of the media or senior officials. The documentation of such stories, and the recognition and celebration thereof inspire other women more often than not. As the policy and research analyst Carolina Rivera-Vázquez writes in “Tracking attitudes on gender equality”, tackling biases is the game changer in the journey towards gender equality because this is not just a gender but a power gap. What compelled Lieutenant General Puri to highlight this recognition as “negative”?

The question of who among men and women have high leadership potential is tricky, since potential includes both tangible and intangible traits that will reveal themselves only with time and the right opportunity. In the absence of consensus about whether leadership potential is gender-neutral, how indeed is one to evaluate the performance of men and women leaders neutrally? Studies show that holding a objective leadership mindset can undermine gender stereotypes and nudge people to provide leadership opportunities more equally to women and men.

Also Read | Indian Army gets its first batch of 83 women soldiers, in the Corps of Military Police

While the Supreme Court’s decision to allow women officers entry into leadership posts in the Army is exemplary, its full potential can be realised only when we shift our lenses so as to embrace inclusive and transformational leadership. Most work organisations are involved in addressing gender inequality at all levels, even as research shows that gender stereotypes about leadership are still prevalent. The road to an inclusive and transformational leadership calls for not only a change in perception but also gender-inclusive policies and a gender-friendly organisational structure .

A new approach is required to reduce gender bias in evaluating leadership. Often organisations may consciously promote women to leadership positions but unconsciously create hurdles by way of policies and structure, setting them up for failure. Addressing policies, structural issues, and practices can help in achieving this goal. There is a need to critically and consistently evaluate how women leaders are seen in the feminine frame and how masculine attributes are associated with leadership and organisational needs. Future leadership needs to embrace more diverse and inclusive practices by radically restructuring organisational setups and policies.

Archana Singh is Associate Professor, Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Prayagraj.