The notion that the hormone testosterone gives men a natural advantage in risk taking, from bungee jumping to working in trading rooms, is so pervasive it may come as a shock to learn it's backed by very little recent scientific evidence.

The theory that men are more competitive and less risk-averse than women has been around for decades and is often used as justification for why they are better suited for the demands of, say, leadership roles or investment banking.

But when psychologist Cordelia Fine delved into evidence from neuroscience and endocrinology for her new book, Testosterone Rex, a very different picture emerged — one which has important implications for tackling sexism and bias in workplaces.

Perceptions about testosterone's apparent influence on male nature has seen it regarded as the king of hormones (hence the 'Rex' in the title).

But in her book, Fine trawls through an array of contemporary studies to skewer that dated belief.

Instead, she argues that testosterone's influence has been exaggerated, and human sexual nature is, in fact, diverse and shaped by many factors.

The influence of testosterone on male nature has been over-exaggerated, says Cordelia Fine. ( Supplied: Future Vintage Studios )

"At its heart this is a book about the evolution of scientific understanding of sex, which has moved on in fascinating ways since the legend of Testosterone Rex was forged," Fine writes.

"But an important message from this is that we shouldn't keep blaming Testosterone Rex for sex inequalities."

In other words, how we tackle the gender gap is a question for our values and culture, not science.

'Neither gender is keen on risk'

"Men don't have a more positive attitude towards risk than women — neither sex is particularly keen on risk per se," says Fine, professor, history and philosophy of science at Melbourne University.

"What becomes clear from the research on risk-taking … is that it's essential to consider the overall context in which people make career decisions. What seems to distinguish between people who are, or aren't, willing to take a risk is their perception of the likely costs and benefits.

The theory that men are more competitive and less risk-averse than women has been around for decades. ( Bewakoof.com )

"These include not just material gains and losses, but also less tangible ones — for example, to one's reputation."

Debunking the myths of testosterone has implications for how we address sexism and bias in organisations too, Fine points out.

For example, Fine cites reports released in 2015 on overt sex discrimination and bias in the Victorian Police Force and the Australian surgical profession.

The common explanation that there are fewer women in these spheres because they're less geared to compete seems "almost offensive", she says.

However, "Taking a 'boys will be boys' attitude isn't going to oil the wheels of the substantial change needed in both the formal and informal ethical systems in these workplaces — from authority structures, policies and codes to norms, heroes and rituals," she says.

"The implication for organisations is that a focus on a discrimination-free workplace context may be more productive than a focus on, for instance, encouraging women to 'lean in'."

First, focus on blitzing bias

Instead of trying to change what people believe about what men or women "are like", it would be more helpful to focus on trying to "de-bias" organisations and processes.

That could mean using approaches such as anonymous recruiting, which removes names (and therefore gender indicators) from job applications.

This strategy can be highly effective. For example, the short film festival Tropfest recently announced it had introduced blind judging so the names of filmmakers would be removed.

Loading

Prior to implementing the process, only 5 per cent of finalists were women. Afterwards, Tropfest said, that figure shot up to 50 per cent.

The role of environment on behaviour is another important factor sometimes overlooked in the rush to blame hormones. As Fine points out, numerous studies have found women's attitudes to taking risks in their jobs is in fact related to their workplace.

In one such study, University of Exeter Professor Michelle Ryan surveyed more than 800 male and female managers at a major consultancy firm.

The results revealed women reported lower expectations of success than men; they also had fewer role models, less support and less confidence that their organisation was a meritocracy.

This was associated with their perception that they were unlikely to benefit from taking risks and making sacrifices (suggesting they would be less likely to apply for promotions, speak up in meetings or ask for a pay rise).

Stop telling women to 'lean in'

One of the workplace areas where both men and women can meet double standards is accessing paid parental leave.

Men who take leave to care for their children can face penalties for the same reasons as women — a perception that they are less committed to their job. But they may also face negative reactions from their employer because their behaviour is seen as incongruous with traditional masculine norms.

Cordelia Fine uses neuroscience to unpick arguments that gender is 'hardwired' and can't be changed. ( Supplied: Allen and Unwin )

Still, Fine argues, these perceptions are unlikely to be shifted by what Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg called "leaning in", or some of the other corporate diversity tools — such as unconscious bias awareness training —that are doing the rounds.

"Ironically, unconscious gender bias is now considered such an obstacle to the fair promotion and retention of women that organisations routinely invest considerable time and money in training to reduce it," Fine writes.

"Yet we vigorously sow the seeds of it in our children from the moment they are born."

This includes dressing girls and boys in different colours, giving them different toys, and encouraging gender norms in behaviour.

Of course, criticism of the idea men and women are born with essentially different natures has been building in recent decades.

But Fine takes a more detailed approach to debunking this assumption — what she calls "neurosexism" — using neuroscience to unpick arguments that gender is hardwired and can't be changed.

Her previous book, Delusions of Gender, also challenged the idea of a gendered brain, claiming there was very little data to back up the popular notion which is often used to explain why women are, for example, better at caring and housework and men are more assertive.

However, she points out, we can all help to change beliefs about fixed gender abilities, even in workplaces run largely by men.

Senior leaders obviously enjoy the most power to create change — whether through implementing targets and quotas, pay gap audits, more generous paternity leave, rooting out sexual harassment, or rethinking media portrayals.

But everyone else needs to play a part in calling out sexism too, she says.

Just don't keep blaming hormones for the problem.