When former United States secretary of state Madeleine Albright said, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” that quip captured a widespread expectation that women who reach the top should pull others up behind them. Yet it’s not uncommon for junior female employees to encounter women in senior roles who seem distant, unsupportive, or even actively competitive.

This phenomenon is commonly referred to as Queen Bee Syndrome (QBS). Although the term is controversial, the underlying behavior is well-documented and has real consequences for the women affected, as well as their organizations and broader gender diversity efforts. The more useful question isn’t whether QBS exists, but why it occurs and what leaders and organizations can do about it.

A label that misdirects

The term “queen bee” first appeared in a 1973 study, when used to describe women who actively resisted changes to traditional gender roles. The name stuck—and that’s part of the problem. The queen bee is depicted as a woman who stings other women to protect her throne, which places the responsibility for unequal career outcomes squarely on individual women. It tacitly reinforces a double standard where competition among men is normal (and even encouraged), but women should be natural allies, and not practicing female solidarity is a personal moral failing.

Research on this topic argues that QBS isn’t an inherent character trait but a coping mechanism triggered by specific conditions, such as male-dominated work environments. Indeed, framing QBS as a personality flaw leads organizations to try and fix individual women. Framing it as a structural response can compel them to address the systemic factors that trigger QBS, which is where the real solution lies.

What causes the behavior

QBS is likely to emerge in environments where leadership opportunities for women remain scarce, fragile, and heavily gendered. In her book Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books, 1979), Rosabeth Moss Kanter (Harvard Business School) shows that when women are scarce in organizations, they’re treated as tokens rather than individuals, subjected to heightened visibility and performance pressure, and expected to conform to gender roles. Below a critical threshold of representation, it’s these structural conditions that shape behavior.

Building on Kanter’s foundation, research finds that women leaders in token positions face two compounding forces. The first is a competitive threat: the fear that a highly qualified female candidate will be seen as more valuable. The second is a collective threat: the worry that a less capable woman might reinforce negative stereotypes about all women, damaging the reputation of those already in the room. Together, these forces make gatekeeping feel, paradoxically, rational.

Another factor is the price of entry. Many women leaders have made significant personal sacrifices to ascend the corporate ladder. Research finds that QBS behavior is directed almost exclusively at junior women, not at female peers who’ve made similar sacrifices. The implicit logic is, “I earned this the hard way, and so should you.” Such responses are better understood as a form of identity protection shaped by organizational environments that have historically imposed high personal costs on women seeking leadership roles.

Research also shows that women in senior positions who are explicitly reminded of gender discrimination are then significantly more likely to display QBS behavior. This dynamic helps explain why QBS tends to be more pronounced in heavily male-dominated environments: The more pervasive the gender bias, the stronger the defensive response it generates.

What leaders can do

Understanding these triggers is the first step. The responsibility to act on that understanding falls on all leaders—not only women. Here’s how they can tackle QBS.

Move from mentorship to sponsorship: Most companies have no shortage of mentors. What women consistently lack is active sponsorship, leaders who put their professional capital on the line to recommend female protégées for high-visibility assignments and promotions, or to say their name in rooms they’ve not yet entered. The distinction matters because a mentor helps someone navigate the path that already exists, while a sponsor helps create a new one.

Challenge your own assumptions: Research shows that leaders frequently hold unconscious biases about the commitment and ambition of junior female executives. Among women leaders, assumptions are often shaped by the trade-offs they themselves had to make, which can lend them a sense of legitimacy. Addressing this requires moving beyond intuition and establishing clearer structures and criteria, such as who gets recommended for high-visibility opportunities and promotions.

Recognize the trigger before it shapes behavior: For women leaders specifically, QBS is activated by context rather than character. When resistance to advocating for another woman arises, it’s worth asking whether it reflects a genuine assessment of merit or a defensive response to the perceived scarcity of worthy roles. Awareness of the mechanism doesn’t make a leader immune to it, but it does create a moment of choice that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

Challenge the norms that define success: In many companies, leadership is still implicitly measured by stereotypically masculine traits like emotional toughness and competitive drive. Leaders who openly push back on these norms can make a tangible difference.

Advocate for flexible work and make clear that communal leadership styles aren’t a weakness. During performance reviews, challenge assessments that penalize women for behaviors that are rewarded in men.

What organizations can do

Individual behavior doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Organizations must play their part in changing the conditions that foster QBS. The following suggestions might help.

Cross the critical mass threshold: Research on corporate boards shows that having at least three women—or around 20% female representation—meaningfully shifts leadership dynamics. At or above this threshold, women can form alliances, feel more secure, and actively support gender diversity farther down the organization. Below it, tokenism, competition, and QBS behavior are more likely. Organizations that set representation targets below these levels may inadvertently create the conditions undermining the very gains they’re trying to make.

Redesign promotion processes: Transparent and structured evaluation processes with clear, consistently applied standards reduce the zero-sum logic that encourages QBS. When the rules of advancement are visible and fair, gatekeeping loses much of its appeal, and women are less likely to feel they must protect their position through exclusion.

Explicitly reward inclusive leadership: Leaders who actively build the pipeline of female talent should be recognized for it. However, most performance systems focus on rewarding easily quantifiable individual output. Organizations should tweak this to make sponsorship, mentorship, and talent development explicit leadership criteria that’s measured and tied to performance evaluations and promotions.

Reduce the personal sacrifice premium: QBS behavior intensifies when women in senior roles feel that those in junior positions are seeking similar status without having paid the same price. Family-friendly policies applied throughout the organization, including parental leave, flexible work, and accessible childcare, can help structurally reduce that price.

Foster a female-friendly culture: Equal pay, zero tolerance for gender-based stereotyping, and leadership norms that don’t reward traditionally masculine traits all signal to women that they legitimately belong in leadership. Organizational culture shifts more slowly than policy changes, but it’s ultimately what determines whether policies stick.

Removing the sting

QBS is a real phenomenon. But once the structural conditions that lead to it are addressed, queen bees often become sponsors, mentors, and advocates. The incentive to guard a scarce seat disappears when seats are no longer scarce. When women don’t feel that they must distance themselves from one another to succeed, most don’t.

Madeleine Albright was right when she said women should help each other. She just forgot to mention that leaders and organizations must first make it possible.

Published July 23, 2026, by Insead.