Most techies are already familiar with the basic dynamic presented in the article -- essentially, "loud, brash and confident" tends to win out over "quiet, humble and competent." There are a lot of soi-disant "leaders" out there who get by on a good haircut and a sociopathic joy in interpersonal corporate politics. You probably can name a few in your company right now!
But women are socially asked to fight political battles with both hands tied behind their backs; not only are they more likely to be more collegial and less aggressive in voicing their opinions, but if they get aggressive they get tarred as troublemakers. Basically, their choices are bob and weave, or just stand there and take the punches.
Studies have shown that more diverse, more collaborative corporate leadership groups tend to come up with more complex, more innovative and more effective decisions than monocultures. Yet most boardrooms still have a stereotype of effective leaders as Jack Welch or Steve Jobs "master of the universe" types, despite abundant evidence that very few alpha-dog leaders are actually good at leadership.
I don't know that I have faith that much will change, especially since "lean in"-style advice is useless and arrogant (unless you have the money to make it happen, which 97% of households don't). Yet my experience at companies (some at the top of the Fortune rankings) that went out of their way to be woman- and minority-friendly has proven to my satisfaction that there's a huge competitive advantage to inclusiveness.
Do you need another reason? Many "leadership" positions rely on arrogance, manipulation, and risk-taking. I'm not saying it's right, but it's definitely reality. Leaders are there for their own well being first and foremost, not that of those under them. Failure to understand this is a failure to understand leadership and management as practiced in real world businesses.
My corresponding anecdata of choice is that most women think they're smarter than other women.
