By Blossom Ukoha
A woman may spend decades building expertise, leading teams, managing complex budgets and delivering measurable business results, yet still be overlooked when a board vacancy arises. Her qualifications may be unquestionable and her leadership record impressive, but the final appointment may go to someone whose experience appears more familiar to those making the decision.
This raises an important question: if women are qualified to lead organisations, why do they continue to struggle for representation in corporate boardrooms?
The problem is not simply a shortage of capable candidates. It lies in how board members are identified, assessed, recommended and appointed. Although women’s representation has improved over the past decade, progress remains uneven, particularly in positions that carry the greatest influence over corporate decisions.
The Numbers Behind the Boardroom Gap
According to Deloitte’s Women in the Boardroom research, women held approximately 23.3 per cent of board seats globally in data collected around 2023. Other datasets focusing on large- and mid-cap companies have recorded higher representation, demonstrating that progress varies across markets and methodologies.
Board chair positions remain considerably less diverse. Estimates suggest that women occupy only about five to eight per cent of board chair roles across different datasets. This matters because chairs influence board agendas, guide deliberations and help determine which issues receive attention.
Developments in the United States illustrate the fragility of progress. Figures provided for the Russell 3000 index show that women held approximately 29.2 per cent of board seats in the second quarter of 2026, down from 30.1 per cent a year earlier. Women accounted for approximately 22.7 per cent of 2,440 new board appointments during the reported period.
These figures highlight a critical issue: progress depends not only on how many women currently sit on boards but also on who receives new appointments. When women secure a declining share of available seats, representation can stagnate or reverse.
The Preference for Familiar Leadership Profiles
One barrier is the preference for conventional executive backgrounds, particularly current or former chief executive officers and senior executives with extensive profit-and-loss responsibility.
Such experience is valuable, but problems arise when these credentials become rigid requirements rather than indicators of competence. Boards may overlook candidates whose experience spans finance, operations, technology, governance and commercial strategy simply because their careers do not follow a traditional executive pathway.
Women also encounter barriers earlier in their careers. McKinsey and Lean In’s Women in the Workplace research has repeatedly highlighted the broken rung at the first promotion to management, where women are less likely than men to advance. Over time, this contributes to fewer women entering senior management and gaining the executive titles often favoured by board nomination committees.
The answer is not to lower standards. It is to assess leadership competence more broadly and recognise that effective directors can emerge from different professional backgrounds.
When Networks Determine Who Gets the Opportunity
Board appointments are frequently influenced by professional relationships. Chairs consult fellow directors, chief executives recommend trusted colleagues, and executive search firms draw on established networks to identify candidates.
Although these connections can help organisations find experienced leaders, they can also reproduce existing inequalities when networks are dominated by men.
A qualified woman may never be considered if she is absent from the conversations where potential candidates are discussed. Another candidate may receive an appointment because an influential director already knows his work, trusts his judgment and advocates for him.
This is why visibility alone is not always enough. Women need sponsorship as well as networking opportunities. While a mentor provides guidance, a sponsor actively recommends a candidate, endorses her abilities and helps decision-makers recognise her potential.
Board chairs, existing directors and search firms must therefore examine how candidates are identified and whether their processes consistently overlook qualified professionals outside familiar circles.
Bias in Selection and Evaluation
Even when women enter the candidate pool, they may face different expectations. A man with potential may be considered ready for greater responsibility, while a woman with comparable experience may be required to demonstrate additional evidence of competence.
Nomination committees can reinforce these differences through narrow candidate profiles, subjective assessments of leadership style and assumptions about who will fit into an established board culture.
These barriers may be difficult to identify because individual decisions can appear reasonable in isolation. However, when similar patterns recur across appointments, the cumulative effect can be systematic exclusion.
Boards must therefore assess not only candidates’ qualifications but also the fairness of the processes through which they are selected.
Why Progress Remains Uneven
Countries that have adopted board gender quotas have generally achieved higher levels of female representation than those relying exclusively on voluntary commitments. France and Italy, for example, have recorded representation levels around 40 per cent or higher in several major-company datasets, while Norway has also maintained comparatively high levels.
Quotas do not automatically eliminate discrimination or guarantee equal influence, but they establish measurable expectations and encourage organisations to broaden their candidate pools.
Voluntary initiatives can also produce progress, although they may be vulnerable to changing corporate priorities and declining commitment. When diversity is treated as optional rather than a governance responsibility, improvements can slow or reverse.
The goal should not be to appoint women merely to meet numerical targets. It should be to ensure that qualified candidates receive fair consideration and that boards benefit from a wider range of expertise and perspectives.
From Representation to Real Influence
Getting more women onto boards is only part of the challenge. Women must also have opportunities to chair committees, influence strategy, participate in succession planning and shape important decisions.
A board with one woman may technically have achieved representation without creating an environment in which she can meaningfully influence its direction. Genuine progress requires women to participate as full decision-makers rather than symbolic additions.
Companies can strengthen their practices by publishing clear selection criteria, maintaining diverse candidate lists, reviewing nomination procedures and monitoring the gender balance of new appointments. Investors, regulators and professional associations should also ask organisations to demonstrate how their governance practices support fair access to leadership.
A Call to Action: Open the Door to Qualified Women
Women aspiring to board leadership should continue developing expertise in governance, finance, strategy, risk management and emerging fields such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Board-readiness training, professional relationships and visible records of achievement can strengthen their candidacy.
However, responsibility cannot rest on women alone. Board chairs and nomination committees must actively identify qualified candidates, while senior leaders should use their influence to sponsor emerging female talent. Professional bodies and women’s leadership organisations can also expand access to board education and connect experienced women with genuine appointment opportunities.
Conclusion
Qualified women continue to miss board seats not because leadership talent is absent, but because the systems that identify and appoint directors do not always recognise or reach that talent fairly. Traditional career expectations, closed networks, inconsistent evaluation and weak accountability continue to restrict access to positions where corporate power is exercised.
Progress requires more than celebrating individual appointments; it requires reforming the processes that determine who gets considered. When boards widen their searches, assess competence objectively and make accountability part of governance, they strengthen both fairness and decision-making.
A boardroom should be a place where the strongest candidates can contribute, not a space where familiarity determines who belongs. The question is no longer whether qualified women exist, but whether organisations are prepared to recognise their qualifications and give them a fair opportunity to lead.
Comments are closed.