I've heard one of the biggest stumbling blocks in the race to get qualified women in leadership roles in companies is the lazy reliance on standard leadership archetypes/cliches. They look for someone authoritative, demanding, perhaps uncaring? Most previous corporate leaders were men so the vague archetypes tended to incidentally have masculine characteristics.
I don't want to blame the archetypes per se – aspiring to be a leader is a relatively positive form of masculinity, although the average person will only get (percent of time in groups / number of people in group) utilization of the virtue. So not something all aspirants can fully achieve, not like honoring your commitments – but it's not bad for these archetypes to exist.
But since that's the cliche of a leader, in a high-stakes role where there's a lot of fuzziness around who can do it well, there will be a bias, both in people self-selecting and in being selected for leadership in corporate environments.
This totally stinks!
Women aren't the only ones who get fewer burdens than they can carry – anything outside the cliche gets punished. One of the most effective and meticulous contributors I've worked with had this theory that shampoo was bad for you, and never used it. Stoners exist outside our archetype for many areas of competence, but when they're sober I find no justified prejudice against them – even though I abstain from drugs and alcohol in part because I like being a bit sharper of a thinker (harder drugs, obviously, are different, and harsher judgment may be warranted). We ought to look at people who strike us as weird leaders – and hire them – if only because they are more likely to have the slightly keener vision to distinguish talent from archetype in the people they hire and lead.
At the end of the day, my ideal market would match everyone with a challenge to their liking and a burden as heavy as they wish to bear (knowing they get more pay for being more useful). We aren't there – and given how superlative that dream is, never will be – but competitive pricing on work quality, while disregarding our intuitions about who might be "a good fit", might do a whole lot of good.