Does She Really Run the Company?

How we engineer governance structures to maintain control while providing the appearance of female leadership.

Someone sent me a bracelet that says "f*ck the patriarchy".

I don't know who sent it, but they've clearly lived my story. This thoughtful gift made me pause and reflect on my journey, and on some of the questions I still wrestle with about where we go from here.

I started my career as a teenager in the late 2000s, raised to believe I could do anything men could do. And for a while, it felt true. Scholarships, mentorships, funding, speaking opportunities flowed to young women in tech. It felt like I had a cheat code. When asked about gender barriers, many of us would shrug: "We don't know what it's like not to be women in this space, so why not capitalize on the opportunities we're given?"

What I didn't understand then is this: People are happy to help women rise, just so long as there's always a way to put her back in her place. Women are welcomed to run teams, manage departments, lead initiatives. The upstart founder as a woman? Cute. Fun, even. But a woman with actual legal authority? That's different. That's threatening.

Companies are legally run by boards. And boards are governed by chairs. As women get closer to real control, not just over a "cute little startup" but over actual power, the resistance kicks in. In basic corporate law, shareholders elect the board, the board hires the CEO. But we're literally rewriting these fundamental governance structures with overriding rules designed to ensure power never actually transfers to women.

Start looking beneath the surface of the (very few) companies "run by women" and you'll see the pattern: The appearance of power. A CEO title. A board seat. Maybe even the chair role (though rarely on paper). But beneath it: a share structure where true authority lives in the hands of others. Often men. Often with veto rights - aptly called "protective provisions," protecting us from these women in power. And let's be honest: if it is women that hold the veto rights, those women (even if they are a partner of CEO) usually don't have actual legal authority wherever they work either. The board becomes a figurehead. And the woman in charge? Just another placeholder.

And once that structure is in place, you're right back in the old version of the game. Where you must stay in your place. Where the traits we celebrate in male CEOs (decisiveness, ambition, ownership) are the very traits that get women removed. A man who's "bold" is a visionary. A woman is "difficult." A man who's "savvy" is praised. A woman is "greedy." A man who takes credit is confident. A woman "isn't a team player." Women are welcomed as the inventor, not trusted as the operator. The founder, but did she really earn the CEO title?

Try being a woman who earns more than her investors. Who believes she's not just qualified but the best person for the job. Who negotiates for the company and for herself. No one names it. But you feel it: The slow erosion of support. The quiet waiting for you to mess up.

So where do we go from here? We often tell women: "Bootstrap. Don't take on shareholders. Stay in control." But that's giving up a massive set of tools in the toolbox. It's shrinking ourselves to feel empowered. And calling it out? That's no easier. This is so deeply embedded that many reading this will (men and women) have no idea they're part of the problem.

So maybe, instead, I'll just ask a few questions: The woman you "back" or appointed: Is she CEO, on paper? Is she actually named as board chair in your governance documents? Is she paid at least the 75th percentile of what it would cost to replace her? Have any powers been carved away from the CEO, like hiring C-level roles? Have any Board powers been reverted to shareholders instead, like budget approvals, or financings? Does she control changes in strategic direction, or does that require approval from a higher authority?

This structure exists everywhere from venture-backed startups to Crown corporations - anywhere governance can be engineered to maintain control while providing the appearance of female leadership. Public companies have cleaner governance structures, which is probably why we see so few women make it that far.

So, now ask yourself again: Does she really run the company? Or are we all just pretending?

To whoever sent the bracelet: message received. 💪

P.S. Yes, this dynamic isn't exclusive to women. Many venture-backed men also face power struggles, diluted roles, and performative titles. But here's the difference: You can almost always trace the real power behind those men back to another man. And unlike with women, there are countless examples of male founders who do retain control and are allowed to grow into the role. This isn't about perfection. It's about patterns.

P.P.S. Bracelet by Fierce Deer <3