A 2013 study of 792 male chief executives at publicly traded companies found that those with deeper voices led larger firms and earned more. Conducted by researchers at Duke University and the University of California, San Diego, the study appeared in Evolution and Human Behavior.
For the median executive at the median company, a reduction in vocal pitch of about 22 hertz was associated with managing a firm roughly $440 million larger and approximately $187,000 more in annual earnings. The same pitch difference was also linked to around 151 additional days in office.
The findings establish correlation, not causation. Revisiting the research in a 2025 podcast, co-author Bill Mayew suggested that both perceptual bias and leadership development probably contribute: people perceived as dominant early in life may receive more opportunities to lead, accumulating genuine experience over decades.
Related research extends beyond business. In a 2012 experiment, researchers digitally raised and lowered recordings of men and women asking for votes. Both male and female listeners favoured lower-pitched versions, regardless of the speaker's sex. Subsequent research found that lower-voiced candidates of both sexes were more likely to win in the 2012 US House elections.
Yet a preference for deeper voices should not be confused with evidence of superior leadership. The researchers noted that it remains uncertain whether this preference helps people select better leaders: a vocal characteristic that listeners reward is not necessarily a reliable measure of ability.
