Every few years, global research releases familiar and uncomfortable findings. Women are highly educated, increasingly ambitious and present across nearly every sector. Yet when we reach the upper floors of organisations, women’s representation drops sharply. Worldwide, women hold only around a quarter of C-suite roles and roughly ten to twelve percent of CEO positions. The question is often framed as why women are not advancing. The research tells us a different story: women are advancing, but the system narrows around them. This is not anecdotal. It is repeatedly evidenced by some of the most credible global institutions studying leadership and work.
One of the clearest findings comes from McKinsey & Company, which shows that the leadership gap begins at the first promotion. For every 100 men promoted to their first managerial role, only 87 women are promoted. This early gap compounds at every subsequent level, meaning fewer women are even in the pool when executive roles are discussed. This is often described as a pipeline issue, but McKinsey’s data makes it clear that it is a promotion and evaluation issue.
Leadership definitions themselves remain deeply gendered. Research published by Harvard Business Review consistently demonstrates that identical leadership behaviours are interpreted differently depending on gender. Assertive men are perceived as confident and decisive, while assertive women are more likely to be described as aggressive or difficult. Even more telling is how readiness is judged. Men are often promoted based on perceived potential. Women are promoted based on proven performance. The burden of proof is not equal.
Motherhood introduces another well-documented barrier. According to the International Labour Organization, women globally perform approximately 2.5 times more unpaid care work than men. However, the issue is not only workload, but perception. Multiple studies show that mothers are routinely assumed to be less committed or less ambitious, even when their output remains unchanged. Fathers, by contrast, often experience what researchers call a “fatherhood bonus”, where parenthood enhances perceptions of stability and leadership credibility.
Leadership structures themselves have not adapted to the reality of a dual-career workforce. The World Economic Forum repeatedly highlights that executive roles continue to be designed around long hours, constant availability and extensive travel, reflecting a model built for a different era. Countries and organisations with strong childcare systems, flexible work policies and parental leave consistently show higher representation of women at senior levels. This tells us the issue is structural, not personal.
Another critical factor is sponsorship. While women receive mentorship at comparable rates to men, they are significantly less likely to receive sponsorship. Data from McKinsey & Company shows that men are more likely to have senior leaders actively advocating for their advancement, putting their names forward for stretch assignments and executive roles. Mentorship provides guidance. Sponsorship provides access. Executive roles are rarely filled through open applications alone.
Risk also plays a role in who advances. Research cited in Harvard Business Review shows that men are more likely to be allowed to fail and recover, while women’s mistakes are remembered longer and judged more harshly. As a result, women are often steered away from high-risk, high-visibility roles that are essential stepping stones to executive leadership. When women exercise caution in this environment, it is misread as lack of ambition rather than rational risk assessment.
At the top, familiarity still dominates selection. With women holding roughly 28 per cent of C-suite roles globally and far fewer CEO positions, leadership teams remain overwhelmingly male. The World Economic Forum and Fortune data show that succession decisions often favour candidates who resemble existing leaders in style, background and career path. This phenomenon, known as homophily, quietly perpetuates itself.
Social conditioning further compounds the issue. Studies show that women tend to apply for roles only when they meet nearly all the criteria, while men apply when they meet around sixty percent. This behaviour is not about confidence alone. It reflects years of social reinforcement that rewards men for trying and penalises women for overreaching.
Despite incremental progress, the pace remains slow and fragile. The World Economic Forum estimates that at the current rate, global gender parity will take over 130 years. During crises such as the pandemic, women exited leadership tracks at higher rates, reversing gains that took years to achieve.
The conclusion is uncomfortable but clear. Women are not under-represented at the top because they are unready. They are under-represented because leadership systems were designed around a narrow definition of success and have been slow to evolve.
And as always, the real question is not whether women must do more to prove themselves. It is whether organisations are finally willing to redesign leadership so that talent, in all its forms, can rise.
Join us next month for another edition of Workplace Watch, where we’ll explore more trends shaping the future of work. Until then, keep growing, keep learning, and keep pushing the boundaries of what’s possible
Amal Kooheji is a growth advocate
&uuid=(email))