Startup Culture as a Masculinity Contest: An Exploratory Study on Prevalence and Gender Dynamics ^†

Abstract

Startups are often praised for their innovative power and dynamic work environments, but are also criticized for workplace cultures that perpetuate traditional masculine norms of competitiveness, workaholism, emotional resilience, and strength. This exploratory study examines the prevalence of Masculinity Contest Culture (MCC) in German startups and related gender dynamics. The Masculinity Contest Culture scale, which assesses masculine norms related to emotional resilience, physical superiority, workaholism, and aggressive competitiveness, was employed to collect data from 101 participants representing various startups. The results indicate an overall low prevalence of MCC, with slightly higher scores for strong commitment to work. Individuals from disparate gender and hierarchical status groups exhibited comparable ratings of the intensity of toxic masculinity. While the presence of female founders and supervisors did not affect MCC scores, male dominance within the work environment had a small but significant amplifying effect. Significant differences were observed based on the prevailing leadership style, indicating that a shared leadership approach is associated with the creation of a more inclusive and less toxic work environment. The results challenge commonly held assumptions about tech startups. In addition, the study highlights the need for further research into the impact of leadership dynamics on startup culture.

1. Introduction

Startups are regarded as significant contributors to technological advancement and are lauded for their capacity to disrupt established industries through innovative, rapidly scalable business models. Their status as nascent, small- to mid-sized enterprises contributes to their reputation as agile disruptors (MacVicar and Throne 1992; Ries 2011; Cockayne 2019; Jansen et al. 2023). In general, startups are perceived positively in the public eye. They are linked to innovation, technocentrism, and rapid growth. On the one hand, startups are known for an informal organizational culture characterized by youth, flexibility, and dynamism. On the other hand, they are associated with extreme dedication to work and stressful work environments (Cockayne 2019; Koskinen 2021; Svensson 2023; Virágh 2024).

In fact, there is often a discrepancy between the workplace culture that startups communicate and the realities of working life within startups, which tends to conflict with expectations regarding egalitarianism, virtue, and diversity (Frisse 2017; Ramadier 2017; Gamez-Djokic et al. 2022; Rushworth and Hackl 2022). This discrepancy can be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that, despite their glamorized surface, startup companies are not gender-neutral spaces (Papageorgiou 2018; Pöllänen 2021). The startup environment is shaped by cultural norms and practices that prioritize traditional masculine traits and behaviors (Tobiasiewicz 2021; Duong and Brännback 2024; Virágh 2024; Hinchliffe and Ajemian 2025; Steenblock and Sundermeier 2025). This has led to a general “gender blindness” (Papageorgiou 2018, p. 96). The “cool, creative, and egalitarian” (Papageorgiou 2018, p. 96) trope obscures the impact of hegemonic masculinity on entrepreneurial and employee identity.

In the context of technology startups, masculinity has been identified as a geeky “brogrammer” culture (Wynn and Correll 2018), “dude culture,” “bro culture” (Miller et al. 2021), “tech bro masculinity” (Crandall et al. 2021), or “guru masculinity” (Li and Chan 2024). This manifests in ways that perpetuate male dominance and marginalize other genders and identities. Such an environment is typically regarded as toxic, accompanied by an acute disavowal of femininity that compels individuals who do not align with the conventional norms of white, heterosexual, able-bodied masculinity to internalize gender stereotypes and align themselves with the prevailing masculine model (Marlow and McAdam 2013; Shevinsky 2015; Massanari 2016; Papageorgiou 2018; Edwards and McGinley 2019, 2019; Miller et al. 2021; Rushworth and Hackl 2022). Toxic masculinity is typified by a proclivity for heroism and risk-taking, competitiveness and aggression, glorification of workaholism, and male bonding, all of which have been identified as characteristic of tech startups (Egan-Wyer et al. 2018; Wynn and Correll 2018; Edwards and McGinley 2019; Li and Chan 2024).

Berdahl et al. (2018) proposed that the phenomenon could be conceptualized as a masculinity contest culture (MCC). In workplaces where MCC is the dominant culture, there is a constant competition for dominance, with those who most closely align with the masculine ideal gaining the greatest advantage. MCC manifests in four distinct dimensions: (1) “Show No Weakness” (hiding emotions and vulnerability), (2) “Strength and Stamina” (displaying physical endurance and strength), (3) “Put Work First” (giving absolute priority to work over personal life), and (4) “Dog Eat Dog” (engaging in cutthroat competition) (Glick et al. 2018, p. 451). The ongoing pursuit of status under a “survival of the fittest” mentality has the potential to be detrimental to the well-being of individuals from all gender identities. Negative consequences of such an organizational climate can manifest in several ways, including an imbalance between one’s professional and personal lives, sexual harassment and other forms of harassment, bullying, feelings of emotional exhaustion, addiction, and burnout (Berdahl et al. 2018; Regina and Allen 2023; Xie and Zheng 2023; Buhrig 2023; Pryor et al. 2024).

The acknowledgment of MCC in the male-dominated field of entrepreneurship raises the question of whether the associated dysfunctional climate contributes to the high failure rates that startups are grappling with (Dotzler and González-Morales 2022). However, the norms associated with masculinity are subject to variation across different cultural contexts, industries, and occupations (Berdahl et al. 2018; Pöllänen 2021; Singh and Bongiovanni 2021). The presence of MCC in US tech startups does not necessarily imply the same for startups in different countries or industries. Accordingly, this study aims to advance the existing body of purely qualitative research on startup masculinities (Wynn and Correll 2018; Pöllänen 2021; Tobiasiewicz 2021; Virágh 2024) by providing quantitative evidence of MCC in startups. It contributes to the literature by extending evidence beyond tech startups and examining factors that enhance or mitigate toxic masculinity in the startup workplace.

In contradiction with the narrative of egalitarian holacracy (Rogers and Paul 2018; Pöllänen 2021), hierarchical structures are pervasive in nascent firms and are a prerequisite for commercial success. Startups establish hierarchical levels to compensate for a lack of alternative coordination mechanisms, such as standardized processes and bureaucracy (Lee 2021). There is a notable lack of representation of women in startup enterprises, both in terms of founders and executives, as well as in the overall workforce. This also holds true in the context of investors, whose funding decisions demonstrate a discernible inclination toward male founders (Ewens and Townsend 2020; Dotzler and González-Morales 2022; Nguyen et al. 2024). Securing investment is a critical factor in the survival of a startup. Those who assume leadership roles in startups have the potential to accumulate significant wealth, power, and fame while facing considerable risk of failure (Ouimet and Zarutskie 2014; Virágh 2024). Due to the high personal demands, accelerated pace, and elevated failure rates characteristic of startup environments (Bethlendi et al. 2025), successful entrepreneurs promote a set of core values, including a “passion for excellence” and “courage” (Finger and Samwer 1998, p. 68). These values contribute to the cultivation of conditions conducive to toxic masculinity.

In conclusion, startups demonstrate the following characteristics associated with MCC: survival pressure within the industry, a high proportion of men among founders and staff, hierarchical structures (Berdahl et al. 2018), intense competition for resources (Ely and Meyerson 2010), and an emphasis on brilliance (Vial et al. 2022).

In light of the substantial impact that founders and upper echelons have on the organizational culture of emerging businesses (Hambrick and Mason 1984; Schein 2017; Simon 2024), it is reasonable to conclude that the masculinity contest subculture is similarly top-driven (Berdahl et al. 2018; Men et al. 2018), with leadership style as a key determinant (Matos et al. 2018; Men et al. 2021).

The proportion of women in senior-level positions has been shown to be negatively correlated with the prevalence of masculine norms in organizational contexts (Kuchynka et al. 2018). While the characteristics of startups suggest a pervasive presence of MCC, the influence of female leaders in these organizations, including founders and supervisors, may serve to mitigate its impact.

As proposed by Ensley et al. (2006), startup leadership can be contrasted as either vertical, whereby a single individual exercises control from the top down, or shared and distributed among multiple team members who draw on diverse perspectives. Vertical leadership is associated with masculine traits, including “individualism, control, assertiveness, and skills of advocacy and domination” (Fletcher 2004, p. 650). The concept of shared leadership has been identified as a postheroic, “feminine” style of leadership, characterized by “empathy, vulnerability, and skills of inquiry and collaboration” (Fletcher 2004, p. 650), which contrasts with the essence of MCC. In the context of startup enterprises, the practice of shared leadership has been demonstrated to be a robust predictor of organizational performance (Ensley et al. 2006). It may also serve to counteract masculinity contest norms that impede the attainment of sustainable entrepreneurial success (Berdahl et al. 2018).

In consideration of these findings from prior research on the characteristics and drivers of MCC, three hypotheses are proposed:

H1: 

In startup enterprises, a male-dominated work environment significantly correlates with MCC.

H2a: 

The presence of female and non-binary founders in startup companies is significantly correlated with a less pronounced MCC.

H2b: 

The presence of female and non-binary supervisors in startup companies is significantly correlated with a less pronounced MCC.

H3: 

In startup enterprises, the prevalence of shared leadership is significantly correlated with a less pronounced MCC.

Given the paucity of prior research on MCC in this particular context, this study employs an exploratory approach. Its objective is to provide quantitative evidence on the prevalence of MCC as a feature of startup culture. While the above hypotheses are put forth to guide the investigation, the primary objective is to gather preliminary insights and establish a foundation for future research.

In contrast to anecdotal evidence and qualitative findings, the results of this study suggest that MCC is not a significant feature of startup culture, except for dedication to work. The preliminary findings indicate that male dominance in the startup work environment significantly correlates with MCC, with the prevalence of shared leadership mitigating toxic masculinity. Nevertheless, the mere presence of female founders or supervisors does not significantly influence the establishment of masculinity contest norms, indicating a complex interplay between gender dynamics and organizational culture. These findings, as well as the study’s limitations, highlight the necessity for further investigation into the underlying factors that drive MCC.

2. Materials and Methods

A quantitative study was conducted to examine the prevalence of MCC in German startups. The Masculinity Contest Culture (MCC) scale, comprising 20 items, was employed to assess MCC (Glick et al. 2018). In accordance with the methodology delineated by Matos et al. (2018), the participants were requested to indicate on a five-point Likert scale the extent to which each of the statements resonated with them with regard to their own work environments. The response options ranged from 1 (indicating that the statement was not at all applicable to their work environment) to 5 (indicating that the statement was entirely applicable to their work environment).

Sample items for the four MCC dimensions following the stem “In my work environment,” are “Admitting you don’t know the answer looks weak” (Show No Weakness); “It’s important to be in good physical shape to be respected” (Strength and Stamina); “To succeed you can’t let family interfere with work” (Put Work First); and “You’re either ‘in’ or you’re ‘out,’ and once you’re out, you’re out” (Dog Eat Dog).

The scores for the MCC dimensions were calculated on a case-by-case basis as the mean of the values for the corresponding variables. The overall MCC score was calculated for each case as the mean of the values for all 20 variables.

In order to ascertain the degree of internal consistency exhibited by the MCC scale and its constituent subscales, the Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient was calculated as part of a reliability analysis. This yielded an alpha value of 0.95 for the overall scale, which serves to indicate excellent internal consistency, while the values obtained for the four subscales ranged between 0.84 and 0.93. These results demonstrate that the MCC scale maintains a high degree of internal consistency, specifically in the context of startups.

Other variables of interest were self-reported and included the participants’ position in the organization, their gender, the number of men in their immediate work environment, the gender of their supervisors, if applicable, the total number of founders, the number of female founders, and the industry in which the startup operated.

The prevailing leadership style in the participants’ work environment was documented by utilizing three response categories based on the description provided by Ensley et al. (2006). The items represented vertical leadership (“The leadership culture is characterized by a clear hierarchy and management level where decisions are made and communicated top-down.”), shared leadership (“The leadership culture is characterized by shared responsibility and decision making. There is an equal distribution of management tasks and there is open communication between the members of the team.”), and a hybrid form (“There are clear hierarchies in some areas and shared responsibility and decision making in others.”).

A database comprising qualified commercial register data on startups was employed for the purpose of sampling. In total, 3761 startup organizations were contacted via email, with the message directed to founders, executives, and staff members. To reduce the potential for bias and socially desirable responding, the survey was framed as a study on startup culture. The participants selected themselves through a text link and provided informed consent. The data were collected anonymously through an online survey conducted from 6 February to 31 March 2024. A total of 118 participants responded, resulting in a response rate of 3.1%. The dataset was cleansed by excluding cases that completely lacked responses to the MCC scale. The final dataset included 101 cases.

Of the 101 participants, 71.9% were identified as founders, board members, or managing directors. The participants identified as male at a rate of 54.5%, female at 43.6%, and non-binary at 2%. The mean number of individuals in the immediate work environment of the participants was 9.7. The average proportion of male individuals in the immediate work environment was 61.6%, which is consistent with the 62.5% male representation of employees in German startups. The mean number of founders was 2.6, which aligns with the average size of founding teams in German startups, which is 2.5. The average proportion of female founders was 19.5%, which is consistent with the 20.7% share of female startup founders at the national level (Startupverband 2023). The majority of startups were in technology and software development (65.4%), followed by health and medicine (13.9%) and clean technology (10.9%), which constituted the largest groups by far.

In the following analysis, the research hypotheses were tested using a combination of descriptive statistics, non-parametric group comparisons, and correlation analyses. Mann–Whitney U tests were applied for binary independent variables, including the respondent’s gender, leadership role, and the gender of the supervisor. Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for variables with more than two groups, such as categorized team gender composition and leadership style. Spearman’s rank-order correlations were calculated where appropriate to examine associations between MCC scores and ordinal predictors. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis of MCC

In evaluating the distribution of scores across the MCC scale and its four dimensions—Show No Weakness, Strength and Stamina, Put Work First, and Dog Eat Dog—several patterns emerged. The mean score for the MCC scale was 1.80 (SD = 0.80), indicating a modest overall endorsement of the scale items. The Put Work First dimension exhibited the highest mean (M = 2.14, SD = 0.93), indicating a relatively higher agreement with these items among participants. The Dog Eat Dog dimension demonstrated a mean score of 1.77 (SD = 0.91), while the mean score for Strength and Stamina was 1.72 (SD = 0.94). The summary statistics for the MCC scale and its dimensions are presented in

Table 1. Summary statistics for Masculinity Contest Culture (MCC) scale items by dimension.

Dimension and Item	M	SD
Show No Weakness	1.56	0.91
1. Admitting you don’t know the answer looks weak.	1.66	1.11
2. Expressing any emotion other than anger or pride is seen as weak.	1.53	1.03
3. Seeking other’s advice is seen as weak.	1.44	1.01
4. The most respected people don’t show emotions.	1.60	1.00
5. People who show doubt lose respect.	1.62	1.03
Strength and Stamina	1.72	0.94
6. It’s important to be in good physical shape to be respected.	1.67	1.02
7. People who are physically smaller have to work harder to get respect.	1.32	0.96
8. Physically imposing people have more influence.	1.71	0.92
9. Physical stamina is admired.	1.99	1.25
10. Athletic people are especially admired.	1.86	1.15
Put Work First	2.14	0.93
11. To succeed you can’t let family interfere with work.	1.98	1.13
12. Taking days off is frowned upon.	1.65	1.07
13. To get ahead you need to be able to work long hours.	2.45	1.38
14. Leadership expects employees to put work first.	2.43	1.11
15. People with significant demands outside of work don’t make it very far.	2.18	1.21
Dog Eat Dog	1.77	0.91
16. You’re either “in” or you’re “out,” and once you’re out, you’re out.	1.65	1.05
17. If you don’t stand up for yourself people will step on you.	1.48	1.05
18. You can’t be too trusting.	1.74	1.12
19. You’ve got to watch your back.	2.36	1.28
20. One person’s loss is another person’s gain.	1.53	1.16

Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation.

.

It is noteworthy that the Show No Weakness dimension demonstrated the lowest mean score (M = 1.56, SD = 0.91), which may indicate a floor effect, as scores clustered towards the lower end of the scale. This is further supported by the skewness (2.18) and kurtosis (4.47) for this dimension, suggesting a pronounced positive skew and leptokurtic distribution. Such findings point to the potential attenuation of responses, with participants being less likely to endorse items strongly in this dimension. Similarly, the skewness values for other dimensions, including Strength and Stamina (1.58), Dog Eat Dog (1.50), and the overall MCC scale (1.40), along with their respective kurtosis values, suggest moderate positive skewness and varied levels of peakedness, reinforcing concerns about response attenuation and possible floor effects.

The presence of floor effects was assessed at the dimension level by calculating the percentage of participants whose mean score was 1. All four dimensions exhibited floor effects, with percentages exceeding a 10% threshold (Puppatz et al. 2017). Specifically, 44.6% of participants indicated that the Show No Weakness norm was completely irrelevant to their work environment, 39.6% reported similar responses for the Strength and Stamina dimension, 13.9% for the Put Work First dimension, and 26.7% for the Dog Eat Dog dimension.

3.2. Exploration of MCC and Participant Characteristics

To examine the potential correlations between the non-normally distributed MCC scores and participant characteristics of gender and organizational status, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was utilized. This test was chosen for its suitability in comparing differences between two independent groups when the data do not meet the assumptions of normality, as it is robust to violations of the assumption of normality. The results of these analyses are presented in

Table 2. Mann–Whitney U test results for participant characteristics.

Independent Variable	Group	N	Median	U	Z	p	r
Gender	Male	55	1.65	1100.0	−1.126	0.260	0.112
	Non-male	46	1.53
Position	Management	78	1.65	721.5	−1.423	0.155	0.142
	Staff	23	1.45
Rank	Supervisor	53	1.65	1204.0	−0.463	0.643	0.046
	Subordinate	48	1.48

Note: N = number of participants; U = Mann–Whitney U statistic; Z = Z-score; p = p-value; r = effect size. p < 0.05.

.

Due to the limited number of participants who identified as non-binary (only two individuals), the data were transformed into two categories (male, non-male) to enhance the statistical power of the test.

MCC scores were analyzed to determine if there were discernible differences based on the gender of the participants. The male group comprised 55 individuals, while the group comprising women and non-binary individuals had 46 members (N = 101). The results indicated that the mean MCC score for the male group was higher (M = 1.86, SD = 0.82) than that observed for the other genders (M = 1.73, SD = 0.77).

The Mann–Whitney U test revealed no statistically significant discrepancy in MCC scores between the male and non-male group, U = 1100.0, Z = −1.126, p = 0.260. This result suggests that participants’ gender does not have a significant impact on their perception of MCC.

The data were tested to determine whether there were any discrepancies in MCC scores contingent on the participants’ organizational position and hierarchical rank. Of the total sample (N = 101), 78 participants indicated that they held a managerial position, while 23 stated that they were staff members. A total of 48 participants reported having superiors, while 53 reported having none. The mean MCC score for managers was higher (M = 1.86, SD = 0.84) than that for staff members (M = 1.58, SD = 0.59). The mean MCC score for top managers was lower (M = 1.77, SD = 0.75) than that for subordinates (M = 1.83, SD = 0.88).

The Mann–Whitney U test indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in MCC scores between managers and staff, U = 721.5, Z = −1.423, p = 0.155, or between top managers and subordinates, U = 1204.0, Z = −0.463, p = 0.046. These results suggest that neither organizational status nor the presence or absence of a superior significantly impacted MCC scores among the participants.

3.3. Exploration of MCC and Work Environment Factors

In order to examine the potential correlations between the non-normally distributed MCC scores and a battery of work environment factors, including male team share, female founders’ share, supervisors’ gender, and leadership, the non-parametric Kruskall–Wallis test was utilized. This test was selected due to its robustness in handling non-normally distributed data and its ability to compare multiple independent groups simultaneously. The results of these analyses are presented in

Table 3. Kruskall–Wallis test results for work environment factors.

Independent Variable	Group	N	Median	M	SD	H (Kruskal–Wallis)	df	p-Value
Male Team Share	0	7	1.10	1.16	0.19	10.252	4	* 0.036
	0.01–0.25	9	2.00	1.94	0.84
	0.26–0.50	28	1.63	1.73	0.73
	0.51–0.75	22	1.65	1.94	0.82
	0.76–1.00	35	1.55	1.85	0.86
Share of Female Founders	0	66	1.63	1.82	0.78	1.642	4	0.801
	0.01–0.25	5	1.60	1.45	0.34
	0.26–0.50	20	1.45	1.74	0.76
	0.51–0.75	2	2.43	2.43	1.80
	0.76–1.00	8	1.55	1.79	1.04
Gender of Supervisors	Male	34	1.45	1.73	0.83	2.566	2	0.277
	Non-male	9	2.10	2.32	1.06
	Male and Non-male	5	1.45	1.61	0.69
Leadership	Vertical	13	2.45	2.58	1.12	17.776	2	* < 0.001
	Shared	51	1.37	1.46	0.42
	Hybrid	36	1.80	1.00	0.83

Note: H = Kruskal–Wallis test statistic; df = degrees of freedom; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation. * p < 0.05.

.

In this analysis, the two continuous independent variables, male team share and female founders’ share, which were originally expressed as a percentage ranging from 0 to 100, were categorized into five discrete groups. This categorization was implemented to facilitate the application of the Kruskall–Wallis test across all independent variables, thereby ensuring a consistent analytical approach. Employing the same non-parametric test for both the originally continuous and categorical variables preserves methodological coherence and comparability. Additionally, this approach addresses potential non-linearity and allows for the assessment of differences between distinct groups without assuming a specific distribution of the data.

A very small sample size in a single category can result in unstable and less meaningful outcomes when employing the Kruskal–Wallis test. Given that only a single non-binary supervisor was reported, the categories “female” and “non-binary” were aggregated into a single “non-male” category for the variable “gender supervisor.”

3.3.1. Male Team Share

The MCC scores were examined in relation to the proportion of men in the participants’ work environments (N = 101). The majority of participants indicated that they were employed in workplaces where men constituted the dominant gender (56.5%). In 36.6% of cases, women constituted the majority of the team or worked in environments with minimal male presence. The remaining 6.9% of participants reported working in environments with no male team members.

The mean MCC score for environments with no male team members was 1.16 (SD = 0.19). In workplaces where men constituted up to 25% of the team, the mean MCC score was 1.94 (SD = 0.84). For teams where men represented 26% to 50%, the mean MCC score was 1.73 (SD = 0.73). In environments where men constituted between 51% and 75% of the team, the mean MCC score was 1.94 (SD = 0.82), and for male-dominated environments (76% to 100%), the mean MCC score was 1.85 (SD = 0.86).

The Kruskal–Wallis test regarding the male share in participants’ work environment revealed a statistically significant difference in MCC scores among the five groups (H(4) = 10.252, p = 0.036). Pairwise comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test, and a Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. After the Bonferroni correction, the adjusted p-values indicated that the differences between the groups remained statistically significant only between the 0–25% male and 51–75% male groups (p = 0.022).

As a post hoc test, a Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between MCC scores and the share of men in participants’ work environment. The results indicated that there was no statistically significant correlation between MCC scores and male dominance, Spearman’s ρ = 0.157, p = 0.116. Although the correlation was not statistically significant, the positive Spearman’s rho suggests that MCC scores tend to increase with a higher male team share, without showing a consistent trend across all categories. This implies that the proportion of men in startups may exert some influence on MCC scores, even if the relationship is not linear or monotonic.

In order to explore whether male dominance influences different dimensions of MCC scores to varying degrees, the relationship between the male team share and the four dimensions of the MCC score was examined using Kruskal–Wallis tests. The results are presented in

Table 4. Kruskall–Wallis test results for male team share.

MCC Dimension	Group	N	Median	M	SD	H (Kruskal–Wallis)	df	p-Value
Show No Weakness	0	7	1.00	1.06	0.10	4.407	4	0.354
	0.01–0.25	9	1.40	1.67	0.79
	0.26–0.50	28	1.20	1.63	0.92
	0.51–0.75	22	1.20	1.52	0.85
	0.76–1.00	35	1.20	1.60	1.05
Strength and Stamina	0	7	1.00	1.20	0.35	4.439	4	0.350
	0.01–0.25	9	2.00	1.98	1.03
	0.26–0.50	28	1.20	1.67	0.87
	0.51–0.75	22	1.60	1.93	1.13
	0.76–1.00	35	1.40	1.69	0.90
Put Work First	0	7	1.20	1.26	0.30	11.478	4	* 0.022
	0.01–0.25	9	2.60	2.38	1.09
	0.26–0.50	28	1.70	1.99	0.93
	0.51–0.75	22	2.20	2.31	0.80
	0.76–1.00	35	2.20	2.26	0.96
Dog Eat Dog	0	7	1.00	1.11	0.16	8.668	4	0.070
	0.01–0.25	9	1.60	1.76	0.84
	0.26–0.50	28	1.40	1.64	0.78
	0.51–0.75	22	1.80	2.02	0.97
	0.76–1.00	35	1.40	1.85	1.03

Note: H = Kruskal–Wallis test statistic; df = degrees of freedom; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation. * p < 0.05.

.

The data indicate that the male team share exerts a differential impact on the dimensions of MCC, with the Put Work First dimension being particularly sensitive to variations in the number of male team members.

-

Show No Weakness: The Kruskal–Wallis test indicated no statistically significant differences in MCC scores across the male team share groups (H(4) = 4.407, p = 0.354).

-

Strength and Stamina: Similarly, the Kruskal–Wallis test revealed no significant differences in MCC scores across the groups (H(4) = 4.439, p = 0.350).

-

Put Work First: In contrast, the Kruskal–Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in MCC scores across the male team share groups for the Put Work First dimension (H(4) = 11.478, p = 0.022). This finding suggests that the overall correlation between male team share and MCC score may be strongly influenced by this dimension.

-

Dog Eat Dog: The Kruskal–Wallis test approached significance but did not reach the conventional threshold (H(4) = 8.668, p = 0.070).

The results of the Kruskal–Wallis tests indicate that while the majority of MCC score dimensions do not exhibit significant differences across male team share groups, the Put Work First dimension does, which may contribute substantially to the overall MCC score.

3.3.2. Share of Female Founders

The MCC scores were examined in relation to the proportion of women involved in the founding of the respective startup (N = 101). The majority of participants (65.3%) indicated that their company was founded exclusively by men. In 19.8% of cases, women were involved but made up less than half of the founding team. In 2.0% of startups, women constituted the majority of the founders, while another 7.9% had an all-female founding team.

The mean MCC score for startups with no female founders was 1.82 (SD = 0.78). For startups where women made up 0.01 to 25% of the founding team, the mean MCC score was 1.45 (SD = 0.34). In startups where women constituted 26% to 50% of the founders, the mean MCC score was 1.74 (SD = 0.76). For startups with a female majority (51% to 75%), the mean MCC score was 2.43 (SD = 1.80). Finally, the mean MCC score for startups founded exclusively by women was 1.79 (SD = 1.04).

In examining the relationship between MCC scores and the share of female founders in startups, the Kruskal–Wallis test indicated no statistically significant differences in MCC scores across the groups representing the presence or absence of female founders (H(4) = 1.642, p = 0.801). Consequently, no post hoc tests were performed. The results imply that the proportion of female founders does not have a significant influence on the MCC scores of participants.

3.3.3. Gender of Supervisors

The MCC scores were examined with regard to the gender of the supervisors. A total of 48 participants reported having a supervisor. The majority of supervisors were male (N = 34), followed by non-male supervisors (N = 9) and mixed-gender duos consisting of both male and non-male supervisors (N = 5).

The mean MCC score for participants with male supervisors was 1.73 (SD = 0.83). For participants with non-male supervisors, the mean MCC score was 2.32 (SD = 1.07). For participants with mixed-gender duos of male and non-male supervisors, the mean MCC score was 1.61 (SD = 0.69).

With regard to potential discrepancies in MCC scores among the supervisor categories representing three distinct gender constellations, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups (H(2) = 2.566, p = 0.277). Consequently, no post hoc tests were performed. The data indicate that the gender of the supervisors does not have a significant impact on MCC scores.

3.3.4. Leadership

The MCC scores were examined in relation to the prevailing leadership style observed in the participants’ workplaces (N = 100). Of the participants, 13% indicated that they experienced a vertical leadership style, 51% reported that a shared leadership approach was employed, and 36% were exposed to a hybrid of vertical and shared leadership.

The mean MCC score for participants under vertical leadership was 2.58 (SD = 1.12). For those who experienced shared leadership, the mean MCC score was 1.46 (SD = 0.42). Participants exposed to a hybrid of vertical and shared leadership had a mean MCC score of 2.00 (SD = 0.83).

The Kruskal–Wallis test, which was employed to examine the relationship between MCC scores and leadership style in participants’ work environments, revealed a statistically significant difference among the three groups (H(2) = 17.776, p = < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test, with a Bonferroni correction applied to account for multiple comparisons. After the application of the Bonferroni correction, the adjusted p-values indicated that the differences in MCC scores remained statistically significant between the “Shared” and “Hybrid” groups (p = 0.006) and between the “Shared” and “Vertical” groups (p = 0.001). No statistically significant difference was identified between the “Hybrid” and “Vertical” groups (p = 0.482). These findings suggest that leadership style may exert a notable influence on MCC scores, particularly in contexts characterized by shared leadership compared to vertical or mixed leadership styles.

To explore whether leadership style influences different dimensions of MCC scores to varying degrees, the relationship between leadership categories and the four dimensions of the MCC score was examined using Kruskal–Wallis tests. The results are presented in

Table 5. Kruskall–Wallis test results for leadership style.

MCC Dimension	Group	N	Median	M	SD	H (Kruskal–Wallis)	df	p-Value
Show No Weakness	Vertical	13	2.00	2.38	1.43	14.48	2	* < 0.001
	Shared	51	1.00	1.19	0.29
	Hybrid	36	1.40	1.80	1.01
Strength and Stamina	Vertical	13	2.20	2.55	1.43	9.61	2	* 0.008
	Shared	51	1.20	1.44	0.61
	Hybrid	36	1.60	1.83	0.94
Put Work First	Vertical	13	3.40	2.82	1.05	14.77	2	* < 0.001
	Shared	51	1.60	1.79	0.72
	Hybrid	36	2.20	2.39	0.96
Dog Eat Dog	Vertical	13	2.40	2.57	1.27	10.52	2	* 0.005
	Shared	51	1.40	1.43	0.44
	Hybrid	36	1.40	1.97	1.04

Note: H = Kruskal–Wallis test statistic; df = degrees of freedom; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation. * p < 0.05.

.

The data consistently show that shared leadership is associated with lower MCC scores across all dimensions compared to vertical leadership and hybrid forms.

-

Show No Weakness: The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a statistically significant difference in MCC scores across the leadership categories (H(2) = 14.484, p < 0.001).

-

Strength and Stamina: Similarly, the Kruskal–Wallis test indicated a significant difference in MCC scores across the leadership categories (H(2) = 9.606, p = 0.008).

-

Put Work First: The Kruskal–Wallis test also showed a statistically significant difference in MCC scores across the leadership categories for the Put Work First dimension (H(2) = 14.768, p < 0.001).

-

Dog Eat Dog: The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a significant difference in MCC scores across the leadership categories (H(2) = 10.516, p = 0.005).

The Kruskal–Wallis tests indicated a consistent pattern across all four dimensions of the MCC score, with significant differences observed for each dimension based on leadership categories. It is noteworthy that the Show No Weakness and Put Work First dimensions demonstrate pronounced impact, suggesting a pervasive influence of the leadership style on the manifestation of toxic masculinity in these key areas.

4. Discussion

4.1. Prevalence and Perception of MCC

The findings of this study offer insights into the prevalence and underlying factors of MCC in German startups. The low mean score of 1.80 (SD = 0.80) on the MCC scale indicates that toxic masculinity is not a significant issue in startups. This consistent perception, as evidenced by the relatively small Standard Deviation, demonstrates that the workplace culture is largely devoid of hyper-competitiveness (Dog Eat Dog), toughness (Show No Weakness), and a bias towards physical superiority (Strength and Stamina). The findings suggest that startup culture does not entail MCC. These results challenge earlier portrayals of MCC in tech startups (Wynn and Correll 2018; Edwards and McGinley 2019; Pöllänen 2021).

The portrayal of startup culture, particularly in the context of technology, is often informed by qualitative research and anecdotal evidence. Qualitative studies highlight specific cases, while the quantitative data from this study provide a broader picture that extends beyond tech startups. Comparative studies of startup ecosystems in the USA and Germany indicate that US ventures are more people-oriented and promote a good work–life balance (Geibel and Manickam 2016). Given such quantitative data and qualitative evidence of startups’ people orientation as a cultural marker (Egan-Wyer et al. 2018), it is at least questionable if the full range of cultural characteristics of MCC is widespread in startups, in general, and in tech startups in particular.

The markedly low mean scores, along with minimal variation (SD < 1.0), suggest a potential issue with scale attenuation. Furthermore, the observed measures of distribution shape underscore the limitations of the MCC scale in capturing a comprehensive range of responses. These effects may not only reflect an underlying reluctance among participants to strongly affirm contest-driven masculinity traits—particularly those associated with vulnerability and aggression—but also indicate a reduced sensitivity to more subtle manifestations of masculinity contest culture, such as microaggressions. Individuals who have internalized masculine workplace norms may interpret status-driven competition or dominance not as problematic, but as normal features of professional life (Kartolo and Kwantes 2019; Workman-Stark 2025). In addition, in hypermasculine work environments, acknowledging the presence of a toxic culture may be perceived as a sign of weakness or disloyalty, which can lead respondents to downplay or underreport masculinity contest norms (Khan and Howe 2020). Therefore, it is important to exercise caution when interpreting the results and considering the generalizability of the findings, especially in the startup context where cultural or social norms might influence responses to masculinity-related statements.

The Put Work First dimension exhibited the highest score among the four dimensions of MCC (M = 2.14, SD = 0.93), indicating that the prioritization of work over personal life remains a notable expectation within startup environments. This finding aligns with the existing literature that describes startup culture as intense and demanding, often glorifying workaholism (Wynn and Correll 2018; Papageorgiou 2020).

The findings of this study suggest that executives and employees in startups hold similar perceptions regarding the minimal prevalence of MCC. In contrast, the findings of case studies suggest that there are discrepancies between the perspectives of top managers and employees regarding startup culture (Strengers et al. 2022). Furthermore, data from the security sector suggest that the experience of MCC norms varies depending on one’s position within the organizational hierarchy (Workman-Stark 2021b).

The results of this study demonstrate that individuals of different genders do not perceive MCC in their work environment in a significantly different manner. This result is inconsistent with previous research that suggests MCC is perceived more strongly from the perspective of women than from that of men (Workman-Stark 2021b). However, it aligns with more recent evidence showing similarly low gender-based differences in the perception of MCC (Richer and Workman-Stark 2025).

The discrepancy between the findings of previous research and those of this study with regard to position-dependent experience and gender-dependent ratings indicates that both the manifestations and the perceptions of MCC may be context-dependent. Moreover, the relatively low MCC scores suggest the presence of floor effects, whereby the clustering of responses at the lower end of the scale may obscure potential differences in position-dependent and gender-dependent perceptions (Hessling et al. 2004).

4.2. Work Environment Dynamics

The findings of this study indicate a statistically significant correlation between the gender composition of participants’ immediate work environment and MCC scores. In alignment with prior research indicating that male dominance within an organization is a catalyst for the occurrence of MCC (Berdahl et al. 2018; Glick et al. 2018), the data from this study support the proposed causal relationship (H1), albeit with a relatively modest effect.

The significant Kruskal–Wallis test indicates that MCC scores vary across groups defined by male team share, thereby confirming that gender composition plays a role in influencing MCC. Nevertheless, the non-significant Spearman correlation indicates that these discrepancies do not consistently manifest in a monotonic trend across all categories. This discrepancy is likely attributable to specific differences between certain group comparisons, rather than reflecting a general pattern. The Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests serve to reinforce this interpretation, with significant differences observed primarily between certain pairs of groups, rather than across all categories.

The Put Work First dimension was identified as the most highly ranked dimension overall, indicating its prominence within the MCC construct in the startup environment. The data suggest that this dimension contributes most significantly to the observed impact of male team share on MCC scores. This finding underscores the importance of work prioritization dynamics in environments with a higher proportion of male team members. Given the observation that male individuals tend to explicitly espouse a more pronounced emphasis on work than their female counterparts (Beiler-May et al. 2017), gender composition may reinforce certain toxic behaviors related to work prioritization.

The weak correlation could imply that MCC is embedded in the organizational culture of startups rather than being solely a function of male dominance. For multinational financial institutions, there is evidence that masculine contest culture norms are perpetuated and reinforced by organizational culture, with male leaders striving to fit in and representing organizational norms instead of maintaining their masculine identity (Detjen et al. 2024).

The findings provide substantial evidence in support of the hypothesis that shared leadership is associated with a diminished manifestation of toxic masculinity, as indicated by MCC scores (H3). The data demonstrate that environments defined by shared leadership exhibit significantly lower MCC scores in comparison to those characterized by vertical leadership or a combination of shared and vertical styles. This indicates that shared leadership practices may serve to mitigate the behaviors and attitudes associated with toxic masculinity, likely due to the collaborative and inclusive decision-making processes inherent to this leadership style (Pearce and Conger 2003).

The pronounced discrepancies observed across all four MCC dimensions underscore the pivotal role of leadership style in influencing the prevalence and manifestation of toxic masculinity within the startup context. The particularly strong effects observed in the Show No Weakness and Put Work First dimensions indicate that specific leadership practices may exacerbate these aspects of MCC.

Leadership plays a pivotal role in undoing gender and attenuating MCC in organizations (Ely and Meyerson 2010; Kelan 2018; Workman-Stark 2021b; Workman-Stark 2025). In a culture where traditional masculine norms are strongly enforced, the presence of a leader who does not adhere to these norms may create a safer or more protected environment for subordinates (Matos et al. 2018). Leaders’ emotional intelligence competencies, such as self-awareness, social awareness, and relationship management, further shield work environments from MCC. Exhibiting emotional intelligence has the potential to transform organizational culture by advancing psychological safety and counteracting harmful interpersonal dynamics (Westover 2025).

The implementation of an inclusive leadership style that espouses concepts of participation and organizational justice can foster a psychologically safe environment and counteract the detrimental effects of a toxic workplace culture (Workman-Stark 2021a; Meluso et al. 2023; Workman-Stark 2025). Evidence suggests that transformational leadership may play a vital role in mitigating the negative impact of MCC (Richer and Workman-Stark 2025). Transformational leadership aims to enhance followers’ performance by fostering commitment to shared goals and exemplifying moral and ethical conduct (Bass and Avolio 1993; Deng et al. 2023). By encouraging team-oriented behavior and “a feeling of family” (Bass and Avolio 1993, p. 116), transformational leaders may help to reduce the prevalence and impact of status-driven competition associated with MCC (Richer and Workman-Stark 2025).

Building on this line of research, the present study shifts the focus from individual leadership styles to leadership as a relational and structural feature of team organization. Specifically, it highlights the role of shared leadership, an approach that cultivates a collaborative environment wherein leadership roles and responsibilities are distributed among team members (Pearce and Conger 2003; Contractor et al. 2012). Shared leadership seems to create a work environment where toxic masculine norms are less likely to thrive. It may act as a buffer against the detrimental effects of MCC by creating a team environment characterized by shared purpose, social support, and voice. In such settings, team members align around common goals, offer one another emotional and psychological support, and feel encouraged to express their views (Carson et al. 2007). Emphasis is on collective success, team cohesion, and mutual trust rather than on individual competition (Pearce and Conger 2003; Klasmeier and Rowold 2022). This stands in stark contrast to the hyper-competitive dynamics of MCC, where individuals are incessantly engaged in a relentless pursuit of dominance and status.

By fostering empathy, vulnerability, and mutual assistance among team members, shared leadership challenges the conventional masculine culture of concealing emotions and engaging in cutthroat competition. Collective decision making is a core tenet of this leadership approach, facilitating a shift in emphasis from the prioritization of work to a more holistic approach that considers the well-being of the team (Crevani et al. 2007; Kaufmann-Pauger and Schneidhofer 2023; Riesch et al. 2023).

The findings of this study underscore the necessity for organizational leaders to be mindful of how their leadership approach can either reinforce or mitigate toxic behaviors, particularly in work environments where work prioritization and displays of strength are culturally emphasized. The results point to the potential for shared leadership to function as a protective factor against the reinforcement of toxic masculinity in startups and other organizations. This phenomenon has not been previously discussed in the literature.

The analysis did not yield a statistically significant correlation between the proportion of female founders and MCC scores. The hypothesis that the presence of female founders would be associated with lower MCC scores (H2a) was not supported by the data. Furthermore, the gender of supervisors was not found to significantly impact MCC scores. These findings challenge the assumption that the mere presence of female supervisors is an effective strategy for mitigating MCC. This is contrary to what might be anticipated (H2b) based on prior research in different contexts (Kuchynka et al. 2018). Although these results may be attributed to floor effects, they serve to underscore a crucial point: merely increasing female representation in entrepreneurship and leadership roles may not be sufficient to alter cultural norms within organizations and does not prevent MCC. It seems reasonable to conclude that, irrespective of the gender of the entrepreneurs and managers involved, leadership exerts a crucial influence on the culture of startup organizations, including the prevalence of masculine norms.

4.3. Cultural Implications

A substantial body of research indicates that the masculine identities exhibited in professional settings are considerably influenced by the collective objectives conveyed through organizational culture. When organizations endorse standards that counteract male competition and prioritize a learning orientation toward work over a performance-oriented organizational culture, MCC is mitigated (Ely and Meyerson 2010). The startup identity is typified by collectivistic goals and values that serve to differentiate them from established companies. In order to achieve high levels of inventiveness, startups endeavor to cultivate a group culture that fosters creativity, knowledge sharing, mutual support, learning, and collective effort, rather than personal ambitions and competitive behavior (Kwiatkowski 2016; Egan-Wyer et al. 2018; Belias and Rossidis 2020; Goncalves et al. 2020; Prommer et al. 2020). The experience of working in a startup is frequently elevated to “a quasi-religious calling” (Egan-Wyer et al. 2018, p. 67). This glorification of the startup experience is at odds with MCC because it prioritizes collaboration, passion, and collective goals over individual competition and dominance.

MCC is associated with occupational cultures and professions that have historically been male-dominated. In consequence, masculinity contest norms are more pronounced in blue-collar work in comparison to white-collar work (Glick et al. 2018; Workman-Stark 2021b). Engineering is one of the professions where MCC is relatively prevalent (Edwards and McGinley 2019; Secules 2019; Wu 2020). There is currently a dearth of data regarding the representation of key occupational groups within the startup sector, including those in managerial, STEM, and sales roles (Roach and Sauermann 2024). Nevertheless, case study research indicates that startup culture assumes disparate forms within the same company, contingent on the occupational context (Pöllänen 2021). As a consequence of the existence of a plurality of cultures within organizations, which may manifest at different levels and in different areas (Schein 2017), the findings of this study suggest that the influence of occupational culture on masculinity contest norms in startups is counterbalanced by the attributes of startup-specific organizational culture.

In accordance with the Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Cameron and Quinn 2005), clan and adhocracy are the most prevalent organizational culture types observed in startup enterprises (Goncalves et al. 2020; Strengers et al. 2022). Clan culture is typified by a people-oriented approach, a focus on collaboration, and the prioritization of shared values. Clan culture tends to prioritize internal relations over external competitiveness. Adhocracy culture is typically non-hierarchical and dynamic, fostering innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking (Cameron and Quinn 2005). The interplay between professional and organizational cultures in startups and their impact on MCC is an area for future research.

In addition to the ideal of an “egoless culture” (Finger and Samwer 1998; Kwiatkowski 2016), startup entrepreneurs are found to view themselves as agents of change, aiming to challenge the status quo (Men et al. 2021; Virágh 2024). This perspective may also extend to aspirations of challenging conventional gender norms and safeguarding teams from detrimental work environments. In this context, socio-demographic factors may also be relevant. The average age of German startup founders is 36.7 years, which is significantly below the average age of the workforce in Germany (Startupverband 2023). Additionally, startups disproportionately employ young workers (Ouimet and Zarutskie 2014). There is evidence that younger individuals tend to espouse more egalitarian views regarding attitudes and masculinities in the workplace (Anderson 2017; Petrylaite and Robson 2022) and to seek shared leadership roles (van Roekel 2023). Furthermore, social status has an influence on the types of masculinity that are valued in specific occupations (Connell 1995). It is notable that 84.5% of German startup founders have an academic degree (Startupverband 2023), which could potentially impact their workplace behavior.

The findings of this study indicate that, contingent on context, gender dynamics exert a minimal influence on MCC, while shared leadership has a mitigating effect. This has significant implications for startup founders and managers seeking to foster more inclusive and supportive work environments. It underscores the necessity for purposeful cultural interventions and the advancement of leadership styles that prioritize collectivity, inclusivity, and organizational justice. This insight is also pertinent beyond the startup context.

4.4. Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has several limitations that point to avenues for future research. Although the sample size was adequate for an exploratory study, the relatively small sample size (N = 101) and low response rate limit the study’s generalizability. Furthermore, the use of convenience sampling restricts the ability to make generalizable estimating statements, and self-selection bias may have influenced the results. Therefore, future studies should aim to include a larger and more representative sample to validate the findings and enhance their generalizability.

Given that the majority of startups in this sample operated within the technology and software sector—a field frequently associated with masculine-coded norms—future research should replicate this study in startups across other industries. Sectors marked by more collaborative, care-oriented, or socially driven values, such as health technologies, education, and social entrepreneurship (Scillitoe et al. 2018), may exhibit contrasting organizational cultures. Comparative analyses across industries could help illuminate how sector-specific norms influence the emergence of MCC. Additionally, extending this research beyond the startup context—such as into public sector organizations or corporate environments—would enhance the generalizability of the study’s findings on gender dynamics.

As the present study focuses exclusively on startups in Germany, future cross-cultural research is needed to explore how national context shapes the emergence and perception of MCC. Comparative studies indicate that U.S.-based ventures often place greater emphasis on interpersonal culture and employee well-being (Geibel and Manickam 2016). A systematic comparison with the United States—where much of the anecdotal and media discourse on toxic masculinity in tech startups originates—would be particularly valuable for advancing understanding of how cultural norms influence organizational gender dynamics.

In addition, examining how local sociocultural diversity and global organizational orientation shape gendered workplace norms represents an interesting direction for future research. Startups located in metropolitan regions such as Berlin may exhibit lower levels of MCC, as culturally diverse urban environments often promote a more inclusive cultural and sociopolitical climate (Silva 2022). In contrast, startups with a highly international workforce may, paradoxically, prioritize masculine norms, as internationalization can reinforce dominant global business cultures and gender dynamics (Connell and Wood 2005; Kuzey et al. 2024).

Beyond sample composition, other methodological limitations may have affected the findings. It is crucial to acknowledge that the sample size may have influenced the outcomes, particularly with regard to the impact of male team share on MCC scores. A smaller sample size can reduce statistical power, thereby rendering it more challenging to detect significant relationships, as evidenced by the non-significant Spearman correlation. Moreover, the strict Bonferroni correction that was applied in pairwise comparisons may impede the ability to identify significant differences, particularly in smaller subgroups. These factors may offer an explanation for why the Kruskal–Wallis test yielded a significant result, but the Spearman correlation did not.

Gender was analyzed using binary categories (male vs. non-male) due to the small number of non-binary participants (N = 2). While this permitted statistical comparison, it oversimplifies gender diversity. Grouping non-binary individuals with women was guided by theory suggesting that those who do not align with hegemonic masculinity are negatively impacted by a masculine-coded organizational culture (Worley 2021; Meluso et al. 2023). Whereas Buhrig (2024) excluded isolated non-binary cases, this study—similar to Richer and Workman-Stark (2025)—chose to retain them to avoid further marginalization. Future research with more diverse samples should address this complexity more directly.

In addition, future studies should employ measurements and statistical techniques that can adjust for a potential floor effect observed in the MCC scores to better capture potential variations (Liu and Wang 2021). In this study, leadership was captured in relatively broad categories. Because the results suggest its importance, more detailed studies should measure manifestations of leadership using more sophisticated, validated scales such as the MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio 2000) or the Shared Professional Leadership Inventory for Teams (SPLIT) (Grille and Kauffeld 2015).

Comparative qualitative research would facilitate a more nuanced understanding of the manifestation of MCC in different startup contexts and its impact on employees’ daily experiences. Furthermore, the possible influence of occupational cultures and organizational culture, which the present study did not investigate, should be given due consideration.

5. Conclusions

The objective of this study was twofold: firstly, to investigate the prevalence of MCC in German startups; and, secondly, to explore the impact of gender dynamics and leadership on MCC. By adopting an exploratory approach, the study aimed to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of workplace culture in startups and inform subsequent, more detailed studies.

In contrast with prior research focused on tech startups, the findings indicate a low overall prevalence of MCC, suggesting that toxic masculinity is not a significant issue within startup culture. Given the exploratory nature of this study, these findings provide preliminary insights rather than definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, the study challenges the common perception that startups, particularly in the tech sector, are heavily influenced by masculinity contest norms. The study also shows that the presence of female founders and supervisors does not significantly affect MCC scores, although the overall gender composition of the work environment has a small but significant effect. The prevalence of shared leadership has a mitigating effect, suggesting its importance in undoing gender. The findings imply that in startups, leadership, along with organizational culture, may play a more critical role than male dominance and gender dynamics in shaping workplace norms. This research points to the potential of shared leadership as a strategic approach to building healthier, more sustainable organizational cultures in startups and beyond.

Although preliminary, these findings have notable implications for startup founders and managers seeking to cultivate inclusive and supportive work environments. The study underscores the necessity for strategic cultural interventions that foster collectivity, inclusivity, and organizational justice. Such endeavors can help mitigate the potential adverse effects of MCC and foster a healthier organizational culture. Future research should adopt a more comprehensive and systematic approach to examining the impact of occupational cultures, organizational cultures, and leadership styles. This would entail utilizing larger samples and accounting for potential floor effects, with the aim of enhancing the generalizability of these findings. By challenging the qualitative evidence of toxic masculinity as a pervasive aspect of startup culture and providing insights into potential drivers of MCC, the study opens avenues for reevaluating how organizational and leadership practices can be adapted to foster healthy work environments.