Why Are There Still So Few Women in Top Jobs?

Efforts to improve gender representation in management roles have made headway. The Australian Government’s Workplace Gender Equality Agency reports that more women are now entering management than men, with gender parity in these roles expected within two decades.

But the executive level tells a different story.

In 2018, a joint report by the Business Council of Australia, McKinsey & Company and WGEA recommended key interventions to improve gender balance at the top—ranging from workplace flexibility and capability investment to inclusion targets and senior sponsorship. Yet little progress has been made since, and this lack of movement raises deeper questions.

With women comprising over 60% of Australian university enrolments and participating steadily in management, it’s hard to argue this is still about mentoring or capability building. If the pipeline isn’t the issue, what is?

Caring responsibilities and executive roles

One key factor is the tension between caring responsibilities and the intensity of senior leadership positions. ABS data shows that women experience a 55% drop in earnings in the five years following childbirth. Media and advocacy efforts have rightly pushed for more accessible childcare and greater workplace flexibility to retain women in the workforce.

While many organisations are adapting to support working parents, CEO and executive roles often remain rigid, with demands that are difficult to align with caregiving. As a result, some women opt for roles that offer greater flexibility—leading to fewer traditional “career markers” and achievements that typically strengthen an executive resume.

Yet these are not permanent decisions. Many women re-engage more fully as children grow up, and their professional ambition resurfaces. But by that point, the structures and expectations may not allow for reintegration at a comparable level.

Systemic workplace barriers

Caring responsibilities are just one layer. Structural and cultural barriers within organisations continue to affect women’s access to key internal opportunities, stretch roles, and promotions. These issues have been documented repeatedly—and persist.

Hiring experiences and cumulative disadvantage

Research by the London Business School shows that negative recruitment experiences have a lasting impact. Women who are rejected for executive roles are more likely to withdraw—not only from reapplying to the same organisation, but from the executive track altogether.

This effect—often referred to as “leaning out”—shrinks the female talent pool with every cycle. Sociological models of cumulative disadvantage illustrate how early setbacks compound over time, creating an increasingly uneven playing field. While rejection is a normal part of high-level hiring, its impact is not evenly felt: men tend to persist, while women more often disengage.

Is equal treatment always equitable?

Hiring processes today are often designed to demonstrate fairness—structured interviews, equal scoring criteria, and clear audit trails. These measures are important. But do they feel fair to applicants? Do they truly allow the individual—especially women with less conventional career trajectories—to be seen?

Executive roles are not about ticking boxes. They rely on a candidate’s unique ability to bring vision, strategy, and leadership to a complex organisation. Standardised interview formats and tightly controlled processes can obscure these attributes. And for women, particularly those whose careers include pauses or pivots, this approach can diminish the value of their experience.

Reframing the process

Boards and senior leaders today are better educated about unconscious bias, and many organisations work with experienced recruiters to ensure rigour and objectivity. But there’s still an opportunity to go further—not by loosening standards, but by recognising that not all leadership potential fits a single template.

Creating space for candidates to bring their whole experience to the process—including how they’ve led through non-linear or unconventional paths—can encourage women to stay in the game. It can help reverse the “leaning out” effect. And more than that, it signals that the organisation values real leadership, not just linear resumes.

Closing thought:

Improving gender equity at the top isn’t just about giving talented women access—it’s about designing a hiring environment where they want to stay. That requires not only removing bias, but rethinking what we value and how we assess leadership. It’s time to build a system that doesn’t just include women—it actively supports them to lead.