Mother or War General? How Gender Shapes the Ideal Leader in Crisis
Written by Natalie Yarnall
An old English proverb states, “cometh the hour, cometh the man.” But, what if the hour comes, and all that you get is a woman? In 2020, the hour came. The world faced a public health emergency, the COVID-19 pandemic, and began to question what kind of leader it needed. The pandemic was a time of uncertainty and fear, characterized by powerlessness against a pathogen. People, rightly, felt they needed a leader who could protect them. So, what did this protection look like?
Research suggests that even “protection” from leaders is gendered. Johnson and Williams (2020) describe that female leaders tend to exhibit protective femininity, which aligns with traditional feminine gender roles and is characterized by warmth, caring, and empathy. In contrast, male leaders tend to demonstrate protective masculinity, which aligns with stereotypical masculine gender roles and involves displays of strength, competence, and protection of economic security.
Usually, role congruity favors men in leadership positions. Because the typical leader in most settings is expected to be commanding and confident, women are typically judged as less leader-like, regardless of their performance. However, a health crisis can affect what traits are valued in a leader. During the pandemic, leaders had to communicate effectively, coordinate across institutions, and maintain public trust amid marked uncertainty. So, communal traits—empathy and warmth—functioned as effective leadership tools rather than indicators of interpersonal skills.
In the following paragraphs, I analyze media portrayals of two prominent leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic: Jacinda Ardern, prime minister of New Zealand, and Emmanuel Macron, president of France. I searched through articles of major news outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, Politico, and The Atlantic, in search of 1) metaphors used to describe the crisis (e.g., war language), 2) traits mentioned in conjunction with leadership competence, and 3) personal details framed as signaling those traits.
Across several high-profile profiles, Ardern is often evaluated using a communal standard in which warmth and relatability are treated as leadership competence. The New York Times discussed how Ardern used “mom jokes” to coax a “team of five million” into lockdown, highlighting her upbringing and new responsibility of a daughter. CNN featured Ardern live on Facebook, dressed casually, and mentioned that she was caring for her toddler while sharing news about lockdown restrictions. The Atlantic investigated what made Ardern such an effective leader during the pandemic, noting her consistent, soothing nature, which led people to feel like she was one of them. They also recognized that Ardern was caring for a daughter at home, spotlighting her informal Facebook chats as an excellent form of communication.
Macron, by contrast, was often narrated through an agentic standard that treats command, certainty, and economic protection as core competence. The New York Times reported that Macron declared “war” on COVID-19 and ordered his people to stay home, noting his use of aggressive, militant language. Politico let readers have a look inside “Macron’s coronavirus war,” framing him as the commanding general of the war against COVID-19. The entire article was rife with militant language (e.g., the ‘next phase of the fight,’ ‘lieutenants,’ ‘strategy’) and portrayed him as a man with a plan: build a competent team, communicate, make decisions, and work with other nations. CNN shifted its focus from Macron’s coronavirus strategy to his concern about the pandemic’s economic impact, emphasizing his plan to protect the EU from economic insecurity.
This coverage shows how gender stereotypes can shape how leaders are spotlighted: Ardern’s leadership was viewed through domestic, motherly scenes—the protective female role—while Macron was described in forceful, militant language—the protective male role. While Ardern’s portrayal was humanizing, it risks shrinking her identity to a family role. Put differently, women can be rewarded for fitting a communal standard while being framed in ways that would rarely be used for men.
The key question is how this type of crisis shaped whether that agentic, war-like standard is rewarded or punished. In a health crisis, the “enemy” is not an opposing army; it is an evolving pathogen and an uncertain scientific landscape. Thus, it elevates a standard of leadership that prizes credibility, transparency, and collective solidarity, while inviting skepticism toward performative certainty—especially when a male leader is framed as a commander who should “win” a war. Thus, a newfound communal standard for leadership in a pandemic may make stereotypically feminine traits look particularly leader-like.
Ardern was painted as a “leader revealed by COVID-19,” and hailed as one of the “most effective” leaders of our time, serving as a “lesson in leadership” for everyone (see here, here, and here). In contrast, Macron was slammed by the media. Reporters discussed how he “bungled” France’s COVID-19 response, criticized him as “out of touch” with his nation (see here, here, and here), and suggested he hypocritically broke his own COVID-19 protocol.
Using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, I found that Ardern appeared to be objectively more effective than Macron based on rates of infection, recovery, and vaccination. However, it is important to recognize that New Zealand and France are in different regions of the world, with different political systems and populations; these differences in pandemic outcomes cannot be attributed to Ardern or Macron alone. New Zealand has recorded 2,236,114 cases (in a population of around 5.3 million), with 0.1% resulting in death. France, on the other hand, has recorded 39,866,718 cases (in a population of around 69 million), with 0.4% resulting in death. New Zealand also accomplished a higher percentage of the population receiving at least one dose of the vaccine (89.2%) than France (83.8%).
Crucially, this does not mean women are simply advantaged in crises. Ryan and Haslam (2005) describe a “glass cliff” in which women are disproportionately promoted into precarious leadership positions when the odds of success are lower. This trend may occur because women signal a shift away from “typical” (i.e., male) leadership, or because they offer skills that are better suited to a crisis (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Kulich et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2016). But they can also increase women’s exposure to blame if outcomes are poor or if women are perceived as chosen because the situation is already failing. A health crisis, then, can both open doors for women leaders and raise the stakes of scrutiny.
Ultimately, comparing portrayals of Ardern and Macron during their responses to COVID-19 shows that leadership templates are not fixed. Crises can change which traits are valued in a leader, and media frames can help determine whose traits look like competence and whose look like failure.
Natalie Yarnall
Natalie is a biochemistry/molecular biology major minoring in psychology.
References
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Johnson, C., & Williams, B. (2020). Gender and Political Leadership in a Time of COVID. Politics & Gender, 16(4), 943–950. 10.1017/S1743923X2000029X
Kulich, C., Iacoviello, V., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2018). Solving the crisis: When agency is the preferred leadership for implementing change. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 295–308. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.003
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81–90. https://10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Morgenroth, T., Rink, F., Stoker, J., & Peters, K. (2016). Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 446–455. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.008
