As far back as 2004, studies proved the business case for having women in leadership positions The US-based Catalyst group, a nonprofit organisation, found a link between gender diversity at the top and corporate financial performance. More broadly, there is strong evidence that gender diversity in leadership has a positive effect on social progress and economic well-being in general. But why then does it take so long to increase the share of female leaders in business and politics?

It could be discrimination. As many feminists suspect and much social science research confirms, the formal and informal barriers to positions of power are still higher for women and particularly mothers than for men. It could be because women do not compete hard enough. Sheryl Sandberg, for instance, wants them to ‘lean in’ more aggressively: sit at the table, ask for the corner office, and forget about babies that aren’t even born. 

Yet it could also be that women quite simply are less interested in leadership positions—at least as such jobs are currently defined and structured. A new study conducted by a team of psychologists and sociologists from Jacobs University in Bremen, Germany and Lund University in Lund, Sweden shows that women in leadership roles are significantly less happy than their male counterparts. In fact, they are even less happy than women who are not holding a leadership position. With men it is the opposite: generally they are much happier being the boss than being the follower.

Why is the subjective well-being of male and female leaders so different? As the data reveals, there is no general difference in how men and women value the importance of a career or family. Both are important for both sexes. Rather the gender difference is conditioned by biological age. There is no difference in the happiness of male and female leaders at young age (below 35) and at advanced age (over 45).  Yet, childless female leaders between 35 and 45 are significantly less happy than childless male leaders. They are also less happy than male or female leaders who already are parents. The biological clock is ticking and distracts women from the pleasures of leadership precisely at the age that is most critical for gaining leadership.

Finally, the study shows that men and women have different preferences for time and money, irrespective of biological age. On average, women appreciate money less and leisure more than men. Hence, in order to motivate women to “lean in” as men do, employers have to either offer significantly more money or more leisure time than for men.

Some companies have started to respond to the different preferences of male and female leaders. A few Silicon Valley high technology firms pay for freezing the eggs of their female employees so as to soften the ticking of the biological clock. On the face of it, this looks like a rather technocratic approach with limited applicability and dubious effectiveness. At least, however, it acknowledges that the time requirements of fertility are not just an individual problem of female employees but a general problem of the company and in the end of the entire country.

Such firms, however, are in a minority. Most do not acknowledge the different well-being requirements of male and female leaders. This is, at a minimum, wasteful: If the private and public sectors want to make full use of female talents, they must help women between ages 35 and 45 to to navigate the conflicting demands of child bearing and a professional career.

They could do this by offering more leisure time as a compensation device. Both government and business could also help by becoming more open to late careers. Above all, a cultural change is needed, particularly in high-pressure businesses. Setting aside the ideology of a non-stop, 24/7, always top-performing leadership will improve the subjective well-being of working women and of most men as well.

In sum, companies, governments and other organisations should rethink the incentive structure they offer their current and potential leaders, and should work diligently to change the perception of what is required to be a leader. If employers take a longer view of working lives, and spread time requirements and monetary compensation more evenly and flexibly across the full span of employees’ careers, the payoff will be happier, more diverse senior executives and a more productive economy. 

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.