I probably have an unpopular view here, but I would take a woman over a man if they are considered equally qualified. It has nothing to do with diversity. Society does discount woman’s leadership a little bit because there aren’t too many of them. If a woman is considered as good a leader as another man based purely on merit, she probably is better than him.
“If a woman is considered as good a leader as another man based purely on merit, she probably is better than him.”
Okay, fine. I'm there. In some such searches the phrase "equally qualified" gets beaten into submission rather than used as an honest guide. I have worked for women for over 40 years and have been blessed that most were highly competent. There are a couple that I would follow anywhere on any project.
I have been blessed to work both with and for some very talented, competent women. I’ve also worked with many more women who have no interest in working a minute more than the bare minimum, who will go to any lengths to avoid additional responsibilities, and who to the last one think they are worth 3X what they are getting paid. They are lucky to even have jobs.
When our company went on a window-dressing campaign to put women in higher positions (regardless of ability), probably to fend off future lawsuits, most of the men started “working like girls” - coming in just on time, leaving at 5 on the nose, taking full lunches, and no longer working from home. It was a real “quality of life” boost, and helped clarify why there is a “pay gap”. It isn’t a gap in hourly pay - it is a gap in work performed.