IWD2025: Why don't more women reach the boardroom?

It is nearly half a century since the American sociologist Rosabeth Moss Kanter observed: “Women populate organisations, but they hardly ever run them, especially large businesses.”

That observation remains dismally accurate today. The UK Government-backed FTSE Women Leaders Review, published in February, found that just 19 firms on the FTSE 350 had a female CEO. 

Yet there are many advantages to gender diversity in the boardroom. Female directors are more likely to speak up when they disagree with a proposal and are often more cautious decision-makers.

Warwick Business School research also found that the more women there were on a company’s board, the better it was at producing innovation. And there is no limit to this effect. If a company really wants to boost innovation, it is best to have an exclusively female board.

Why then is it so hard for women to reach the boardroom?

Four main explanations are usually offered for under-representation. However, Deborah Dean, Associate Professor of Industrial Relations, dismisses these with her co-authors Meryl Bushell and Kim Hoque in their book The Network Trap.

The first is human capital – the qualifications, skills and experience female candidates offer. More women now go to university and complete postgraduate programmes than men, and they are more likely to continue learning throughout their careers.

However, maternity leave, career breaks and part-time roles with fewer development opportunities can leave women with less experience and skills than their male colleagues.

This is more likely to affect women in more junior roles, helping to perpetuate a gender pay gap that means women are still paid just 91p for every £1 a man earns.

But by the time women reach senior management positions most have overcome these issues. This means there is no shortage of qualified female candidates for boardroom roles. However, they are often seen as possessing 'different skills’ from men. This is not always as positive as it sounds.

“Some chairs may view those different skills as positive, while others may not,” says Dr Dean.

The second argument is personal preference – the idea that many women lack the ambition for senior roles. This argument has been widely challenged and academics have stressed that, if women are not pursuing progression in some workplaces, it may have more to do with company culture.

For example, Marianna Fotaki, Professor of Business Ethics, warns that male-dominated organisations with a large gender pay gap may be more susceptible to behaviours like sexual harassment in the workplace.

This can cause absenteeism and silent withdrawal, lowering the earning capacity and likelihood of career progression for women who experience sexual harassment.

The third theory concerns ‘attribution’. This can refer to the way that female employees interpret events in the workplace and the judgements that others make about them.

Research shows women are more likely to attribute their success at work to external factors – such as team contributions – rather than taking the credit themselves.

At the same time they are more likely to take personal responsibility for failure than men. This honesty can influence how colleagues perceive the achievements and ability of female workers.

It is not the only factor that influences how female workers are viewed. Women with multiple marginalised identities – such as those from ethnic minorities, from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and with disabilities – face additional layers of exclusion and discrimination. This can affect every aspect of their work experience.

Yumna Arif, a doctoral researcher at WBS, found working-class women in the UK were perceived and evaluated more negatively than their middle-class peers.

Her research shows working-class women are likely to be stereotyped as less educated, intelligent and competent than their middle-class colleagues and are less likely to be viewed as leaders.

“Not only are they deemed to be less socially desirable colleagues, they are also seen as less desirable leaders, with doubts about their impact on innovation and company culture,” argues Ms Arif.

“This bias creates a deeper barrier to their progression into leadership roles, making their journey to the boardroom even more daunting and complex.”

Why 'queen bee' women can reach the boardroom

The fourth factor is that women display confidence and their desire to progress differently from men.

Self-efficacy – confidence in one’s own ability to complete tasks and achieve goals – has long been associated with career success in organisations structured around stereotypically male values.

However, studies show women are less likely to adopt a ‘dominant’ leadership style and take credit for success. Women who defy this gender norm appear to benefit from doing so.

Qing Wang, Professor of Marketing, found that female managers known as ‘queen bees’ – who distance themselves from other women at work and exhibit more masculine behaviours – tend to be happier in their roles than those who do not. They are also more likely to progress.

Professor Wang said: “Implicit bias makes us feel more comfortable when interacting with similar people. That means ‘queen bees’ are more likely to be promoted in a highly masculine envrionment.”

These four factors may contribute to a ‘leaky pipeline’ of female talent that reduces the number of women who progress to middle and senior management positions.

However, the authors of The Network Trap had special access to FTSE 350 firms and found this does not explain why many female managers struggle to gain promotion to board level.

After all, these women have already shown the skill, experience, ambition and self-efficacy to reach senior positions within the organisation.

Instead, Dr Dean and her co-authors argue that they are being hindered by a fifth factor. Networks are crucial at this level and women are locked into poorer-quality networks than their male peers.

Board vacancies are rarely advertised. Executive director roles are often filled through internal succession plans, with well-networked candidates sponsored by existing board members.

External candidates and non-executive directors are often suggested by the chair, a board member or a headhunter from within their network.

Dr Dean said: “Our analysis demonstrated the vital role of networks at every stage of the boardroom recruitment process – from sourcing candidates right through to the final deliberations.

“This traps women in poor-quality networks in terms of progression.”

“We also found that women engaged in less networking than their male peers. Men with boardroom aspirations viewed business socials and industry-focused networking events as important opportunities to develop influential contacts.

“By contrast, many women viewed them as an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction from their day job. The belief in formal, meritocratic processes was strong.”

Why women can't get into the 'old boys' club'

It is unlikely that women will invest in managing their networks in the same way as their male peers if they feel they will reap few rewards from doing so.

This is where ‘homophily’ – our preference to interact with people who are similar to us in terms of gender, social class, education and race – plays a crucial role.

Women are largely excluded from the ‘old boys’ club’ created by school and university socialisation, from within which individuals are often sourced and championed for board-level roles.

Men are also more reticent about maintaining contact with their former female than male colleagues once they are no longer working together.

Similarly, female boardroom aspirants maintain contact with very few former male superiors or colleagues.

Consequently, women develop more functional networks that help them perform their current role as well as possible, rather than the strategic networks men favour to enhance their career prospects. This traps women in poor-quality networks in terms of progression.

Women-only network events may be useful for those working at more junior levels, but senior managers are unlikely to find sponsors at these events.

Meanwhile, many chairs have little desire to extend board-level hiring beyond the networks they have traditionally relied on and the current regulatory framework is largely ineffectual.

The Trades Union Congress has warned it will take more than 20 years to achieve gender parity in terms of salary. Removing the additional barriers facing women could accelerate that process.

The authors of The Network Trap suggest that an open application system that favours merit over networks and sponsorship is the best way to improve gender balance in the boardroom.

Indeed, a formal and transparent selection process has contributed to the 50:50 gender split in senior leadership in the UK subsidised arts sector, as WBS alum Mary Ann le Lean found in her doctoral thesis.

Manuela Galetto, Associate Professor of Employment Relations, said: “It is not enough to nudge employers to act. We need stronger regulation to close the gender pay gap.”

Further reading:

More women in the C-suite produces more innovation

Why are ambitious female founders penalised by investors?

Six ways to increase inclusivity as a leader

Discover more about the Future of Work by subscribing to our Core Insights Newsletter.