The Unresolvable Equity from the Psychometric and Neurochemical Perspective — SIVHs as an Antidote to Improve Female Top-Employee Position
In our research projects, we have frequently encountered a non-generic, often public-relations-driven push for equity — specifically, the effort to create executive teams and boards with a perfectly balanced ratio of men to women. If such initiatives are implemented as part of a company’s external communications strategy or framed explicitly as social experiments, that is fully understandable and can be transparently communicated as such. If not, there are some aspects to consider.
From a strictly scientific standpoint, the competition between men and women for top-tier leadership roles is fundamentally unequal — not due to any artificially constructed, male-dominated power hierarchies (the existence of which is not highly debatable, but rather clearly refuted) but rather due to deep-rooted evolutionary factors and inherent personality trait differences.
Player Against Player – The Evolutionary Inequality
When analyzing highly career-driven men, we often encounter a distinct matrix of subtraits: significantly above-average openness to ideas, high general mental ability (GMA), extreme industriousness, elevated assertiveness, and — depending on the specific field — either controlled, self-imposed, or naturally high orderliness, often coupled with low biological politeness. This combination, from a psychometric and evolutionary perspective, forms a formidable “package,” which we might visualize as “Fighter 1” in a video game analogy.
Now, if we construct an ideal opponent — “Fighter 2” — as a female character, there is no inherent disadvantage in terms of openness to ideas or GMA. For the sake of argument, we may also assume that industriousness matches, though from a statistical standpoint this is a more optimistic assumption, as research shows women tend to log fewer total work hours on average in high-pressure roles (Blau & Kahn, 2013). Still, although industriousness is also pre-determined to a large degree biologically, the a actual hours used for working remains largely under personal control and is not in principle biologically restricted.
The key constraint arises when we consider assertiveness — the “lifeblood” trait that enables an individual to turn a multitude of intelligent ideas into decisive actions. This is where biological differences present a challenge.
From an evolutionary perspective, this difference becomes clearer: male assertiveness evolved to drive active, aggressive pursuit of new prey or resources — in modern terms, aggressively hunting for new roles or advancement within dominance hierarchies. In contrast, female assertiveness evolved primarily for protecting offspring and kin, manifesting more often as passive resistance or reactive aggression in defense rather than proactive conquest.
The Built-In Disadvantage
When we compare male and female physiology, there is a significant built-in disadvantage that affects direct, “head-to-head” competitive scenarios, and this is largely related to estrogen production.
Estrogen plays a crucial role in shaping female brain structure and behavior, influencing key regions such as the amygdala, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex — areas critical for social behavior, emotion regulation, and executive functioning. Estrogen is strongly associated with increased affiliative and nurturing behaviors (McEwen & Milner, 2017). It enhances emotional sensitivity, empathy, and social bonding, traits that align closely with higher Agreeableness and compassion. Furthermore, estrogen potentiates the oxytocinergic system (Carter, 2007), promoting trust, caregiving, and social cohesion. While advantageous for community building and cooperation, these traits often work against dominant or assertive behaviors, particularly when empathy and social harmony are elevated.
Biochemically, this results in a tendency for women to be less risk-seeking and less inclined toward “all-in” predatory aggression, which is often essential in highly competitive situations (e.g., vying for the same executive position within a company).
Additionally, estrogen appears to downregulate dopamine activity in the mesolimbic reward system (Becker & Hu, 2008), which may contribute to a comparatively lower motivation for reward-seeking, dominance-related behaviors in women relative to men. Men, with higher baseline testosterone, typically exhibit stronger dopaminergic drives, linked to proactive competition. Estrogen is also associated with increased serotonin receptor expression (Bethea et al., 2002), leading to reduced impulsivity and lower aggression—neurochemical factors that psychometric models closely link to assertiveness and dominant social behavior.
From a psychometric standpoint, this suggests that assertiveness in high-stakes “combat” situations does not decline in a gradual, linear fashion. Instead, for many women, due to neurochemical modulation, assertiveness may decline rapidly under pressure — essentially dissolving according to a negative geometric progression — resulting in fewer actions being taken at critical moments.
Assertiveness Differences Manifest in Action
When we closely examine the mechanics of assertiveness, a key insight emerges: to be the most effective “fighter” (continuing with the video game analogy), the character must take action above all else. No matter how many ingenious ideas or strategies one generates within a given time frame, what ultimately determines success is the ability to select from those ideas and act on them decisively. In gaming terms, a character may have a vast repertoire of powerful moves — kicks, punches, combinations — but victory is determined by the moves that are executed in real-time against an opponent.
This is where a critical difference often arises between the “high-performance” male and female competitors. Males with elevated assertiveness tend to externalize a greater number of ideas into tangible actions, landing more metaphorical (or literal) “blows” in competitive arenas.
In contrast, women, despite generating similarly creative ideas, may translate fewer of them into action. Neurochemistry exerts a toll here — particularly under high-stakes conditions — resulting in reduced execution compared to their male counterparts. This gap is further amplified by the cyclical nature of female neurobiology.
Studies have consistently shown that female assertiveness fluctuates across the menstrual cycle. During the follicular phase (when estrogen levels rise), women often display increased sociability without a corresponding rise in assertive or dominant behavior (Roney & Simmons, 2008). In the luteal phase, when both progesterone and estrogen peak, risk-taking and assertiveness generally decline, likely due to heightened emotional regulation and affiliative tendencies (Maner & Miller, 2014).
While there is some evidence suggesting a modest increase in assertiveness around ovulation — when estrogen and testosterone levels rise together — this peak is still less pronounced compared to male testosterone-driven assertiveness (Durante et al., 2008).
Ultimately, these biochemical dynamics place additional neurochemical restrictions on top-performing women when it comes to executing decisive actions. Even small differences in assertiveness — such as the degree to which one “pushes further” or “goes all in” during competitive moments — can create tangible disparities, as competitors sense each other’s limits. In corporate environments, these subtle but consistent differences often make the deciding impact when it comes to landing key leadership roles.
The Nature of the Combat – The Need for Active Aggression
No matter how diplomatically we frame the issue, we must acknowledge the fundamental evolutionary advantage that a highly assertive male holds over a highly assertive female in direct competition. This advantage stems from the intrinsic nature of assertiveness as a form of active aggression.
When both a male and a female compete for the same high-level position, the scenario frequently resembles a game of “offense.” Both competitors may already hold significant status and resources, but the objective is to secure something bigger — a new leadership role, increased influence, or strategic control. In these moments, the neurobiology of the assertive male offers an advantage. Male assertiveness is more readily aligned with proactive, predatory aggression — driven by dopaminergic circuits geared toward hunting and conquest.
In contrast, female assertiveness, shaped by evolutionary pressures, is often more compatible with defensive aggression. Neurochemically, women’s assertive responses are more frequently linked to protecting what they already possess (e.g., offspring in an evolutionary context) rather than aggressively pursuing new gains. This distinction is not just theoretical — it is biologically encoded.
Thus, in a “predator” role — where initiating bold, competitive maneuvers is critical—the male neurochemical profile often provides an edge. Meanwhile, the female neurobiological framework would likely be more optimally aligned if the contest were framed as defending existing resources or status, rather than attacking for new ones.
The Effect of SIVHs
We have consistently observed the significant advantages of utilizing SIVHs (Structured Internal Value Hierarchies) in these scenarios, particularly among female leaders and top-level managers. A clearly constructed SIVH allows women to reframe the competitive pursuit of a leadership position — not as an “offensive game” aimed at personal gain but as a “defensive” strategy to protect their existing or future well-being, including that of their family or children.
This cognitive reframing has repeatedly led to noticeable improvements in assertiveness among female professionals. By redefining the nature of the conflict, women are better able to access and leverage their assertiveness potential in a manner that aligns more closely with their neurobiological predispositions.
When all other factors remain equal — ceteris paribus (such as similar levels of industriousness, openness, and general mental ability) — the introduction of a well-formed SIVH can meaningfully shift the dynamics in favor of female candidates. While SIVHs alone cannot fully overcome every neurochemical asymmetry, and outcomes will always remain relative (especially if both male and female competitors are applying similar cognitive frameworks), we have found that women utilizing SIVHs frequently achieve stronger positioning and increased resilience.
In essence, SIVHs offer a valuable psychological antidote to the neurochemical disadvantages women face in hyper-competitive, high-stakes corporate environments.
Conclusion
While the push for gender equity at the executive level is often driven by noble intentions, the scientific reality behind male and female competitive dynamics is far more complex. Evolutionary biology, psychometric profiles, and neurochemical frameworks reveal that men and women enter high-stakes corporate battles with fundamentally different baseline conditions — particularly around assertiveness and aggression.
This is not a critique of female potential but an acknowledgment of biological and psychological asymmetries that make “equal footing” a more nuanced issue than many corporate equity initiatives assume. In most cases drives for such “equal footing” are impossible to realise without serious damage to the financials, growth and the growth potential of the company. Assertiveness, as shaped by neurochemistry and evolutionary pressures, often favors proactive, offensive strategies in men while directing women toward more defensive, nurturing behaviors.
Yet, this imbalance is not absolute. The implementation of Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) offers a tangible and effective solution for women navigating executive competition. By reframing career advancement as an act of defense — protecting long-term personal and family stability — SIVHs allow female leaders to unlock assertive potential that might otherwise remain dormant.
Ultimately, the path to improving female representation at the top is not to ignore the underlying psychometric and biological landscape but to strategically work with it. SIVHs offer a model of internal calibration that enables women to remain competitive — even within environments structured around evolutionary forces.
Some of the References Used for the Article
McEwen, B. S., & Milner, T. A. (2017). "Understanding the broad influence of sex hormones and sex differences in the brain." Journal of Neuroscience Research, 95(1-2), 24-39.
Carter, C. S. (2007). "Sex differences in oxytocin and vasopressin: Implications for autism spectrum disorders?" Behavioural Brain Research, 176(1), 170-186.
Becker, J. B., & Hu, M. (2008). "Sex differences in drug abuse." Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 29(1), 36-47.
Bethea, C. L., Lu, N. Z., Gundlah, C., & Streicher, J. M. (2002). "Diverse actions of ovarian steroids in the serotonin neural system." Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 23(1), 41-100.
Roney, J. R., & Simmons, Z. L. (2008). "Women’s estradiol predicts preference for facial cues of men’s testosterone." Hormones and Behavior, 53(1), 14-19.
Maner, J. K., & Miller, S. L. (2014). "Hormones and social monitoring: Menstrual cycle shifts in progesterone underlie women’s sensitivity to social information." Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(1), 9-16.
Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). "Changes in women’s choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1451-1460.
