The shortage of women in CEO and senior executive roles is not simply a recruitment issue. It reflects decisions made years earlier about who gets commercial responsibility, high profile assignments and the experience needed to lead a business.
For boards seeking a stronger and more diverse leadership team, the most effective starting point is often succession planning, rather than the next executive vacancy.
Progress at Board Level Has Not Yet Reached the Executive Team
Women account for 49% of the UK workforce but hold only 38% of vice president, partner and C suite roles, according to the 2026 Women in Work Gender Equity Measure. In the 400 large employers covered by that research, 55 of 62 CEO appointments went to men.
The FTSE Women Leaders Review 2026 also highlights the difference between representation on boards and within executive leadership. Women held 44% of FTSE 100 board positions in 2025 yet occupied just nine CEO roles. Progress in non-executive appointments does not automatically translate into an equally balanced pool of future chief executives.
The Experience Gap Starts Much Earlier
Boards understandably seek CEO candidates who have led substantial teams, managed profit and loss, delivered growth, handled difficult trading conditions and worked closely with customers, investors and other stakeholders.
The critical question is whether promising women have had the same opportunities to build that experience. Who is asked to lead a major business unit? Who is given a challenging turnaround? Who gains international exposure, ownership of commercial decisions or regular access to the board?
When these opportunities repeatedly go to the same type of candidate, the eventual succession shortlist may reflect historic decisions about development as much as individual capability.
Why Talented Women Can Be Overlooked
The Women in Work research reports that women are not promoted and retained at the same rate as men in six out of ten organisations. It identifies a particular loss of representation at the transition into senior leadership.
There is rarely a single explanation. Inflexible working arrangements, caring responsibilities, limited sponsorship and informal promotion practices can all influence progression. Equally, talented executives may be concentrated in functions that offer fewer direct routes to CEO appointments.
Organisations can unintentionally compound these barriers when important assignments are allocated through established networks rather than transparent criteria. The result is a narrower field of experienced internal candidates when senior vacancies arise.
What Boards and CEOs Should Do Differently
Greater representation matters, but measuring headcount alone does not reveal whether the next generation of leaders is being developed fairly. Boards should examine who is receiving the experience that will qualify them for executive committee and CEO appointments.
Practical steps include reviewing succession plans several years ahead, setting clear criteria for high value assignments, comparing promotion and retention outcomes, and giving high potential leaders access to meaningful sponsorship and commercial responsibilities.
External executive search remains important. It can widen the field, challenge assumptions and identify capable leaders beyond existing networks. But even the most rigorous search cannot fully compensate for years of missed development opportunities within an organisation.
Novo’s Perspective
Building a stronger female leadership pipeline is both a talent priority and a commercial opportunity. Businesses benefit when appointments draw on the widest credible pool of candidates, supported by relevant experience and objective assessment.
At Novo Executive Search, we believe boards should ask a straightforward question: are we giving talented people the opportunities today that will make them credible candidates for our most senior roles in five years?
The answer will often tell an organisation more about its future leadership strength than the composition of its current board.
