There are numerous reasons for this development. In information-based societies like those we now live in, networks are replacing hierarchies and workers are becoming less deferential to their supervisors. ‘Shared’ and ‘distributed’ organisational models, which place the chief executive at the centre of a circle — not on top a hierarchy — are becoming much more common and powerful. The CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, has said that he now has to ‘coddle’ his employees, and even the US military has encouraged its drillmasters to do less shouting because, according to Under Secretary of Defence David Chu, today’s generation of recruits respond better to instructors who play ‘a more counseling-type role.’ On the battlefield, meanwhile, military success in counterinsurgencies, the prevalent type of warfare, requires soldiers to win hearts and minds, not just break bodies.

President George W. Bush has described himself as ‘the decider,’ but there is much more to modern leadership than that. Contemporary leaders need to use networks, to collaborate and to encourage participation in order to succeed. IBM’s CEO Samuel Palmisano has argued that a command-and-control style hampers the flow of information needed for the collaborative work of today’s multinational corporations.

In the past, to be successful leaders, women had to adopt a stereotypically ‘masculine’ style and to give up on being ‘nice’ — think Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady of British politics. But today, with the information revolution and democratisation demanding more participatory leadership, such sacrifices are no longer necessary. Still, as The Boston Globe’s Ellen Goodman has pointed out, “While Hillary has been positioned as a tough guy, Obama has become the Oprah candidate. It’s easy to talk in a woman’s voice if you are a man.”

According to the psychiatrist Arnold Ludwig, women still lag in leadership positions, holding only 5 per cent of top corporate positions worldwide, and a minority of positions in elected legislatures — ranging from 45 per cent in Sweden to 16 per cent in the United States. Ludwig also found that of the 1,941 people who ruled independent countries in the 20th century, only 27 of them were women, and half of those came to power as widows or daughters of a male ruler. Less than 1 per cent of all the 20th century’s rulers were women who gained power on their own. If we are now entering a woman’s world, why are females not doing better?

The persistent gender gap can be explained by women’s relative lack of experience, their primary caregiver responsibilities, their bargaining style and plain old discrimination. Women’s traditional career paths have not allowed them to gain the experience necessary for becoming top leaders in many contexts. Research by Harvard’s Hannah Riley Bowles and Kathleen McGinn shows that even in democratic societies, women still face a higher risk of social criticism than do men when attempting to negotiate for career-related resources such as compensation. Women are generally not well integrated into the male networks that dominate organisations, and gender stereotypes about the expression of emotions still hamper women who try to overcome such barriers. Though they seemed to help Clinton in New Hampshire, tears remain dangerous weapons, in the boardroom or on the campaign trail.

As the gradual increase in the number of women in high positions shows, the gender bias is beginning to break down, but it’s too soon to suggest we now live in a ‘woman’s world.’ Even positive stereotypes are bad for women, men and effective leadership. Questions of appropriate style — when to use hard- and soft-power skills — are equally relevant for men and women, and should not be clouded by traditional roles. In some circumstances, men need to act more like ‘women’ and women more like ‘men.’ The key will depend not on gender but on how individuals combine hard- and soft-power skills to produce the best outcome.

Nye is author of ‘Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics’ and ‘The Powers to Lead’