Why women rarely lead executive boards and how ANU research could change this

In less than 20 years, women’s presence on the boards of Australia’s top 200 companies has more than tripled. 

But this growing representation has not necessarily translated into greater decision-making influence for female leaders.

Today, the latest data available shows only 27 women hold chair positions across ASX 200 boards.

Professor Tracy Wang, a corporate governance researcher at The Australian National University (ANU) College of Business and Economics (CBE), cautions that policies focused solely on increasing representation may not be enough to ensure women drive meaningful change.

“Australia has made real progress on board gender diversity, but women remain underrepresented in board leadership positions,” she says. 

Across the globe, many reforms aimed at improving gender equality through numerical targets have resulted in tokenism and symbolic compliance.

“Reforms that are often backed by quotas, penalties or other mandatory obligations are effective at increasing representation numerically but less so at translating representation into genuine influence,” Wang says. 

To improve gender equality outcomes, Wang’s research shows board reforms must move beyond checkbox exercises and put women in positions where they feel empowered. 

“Empowerment means women are not only present, but influential. They are more likely to serve on major committees and shape strategic and monitoring decisions,” she says. 

"The difference matters. Representation changes who is in the room. Empowerment changes who has voice and authority."

A male-coded system

The indicators used by organisations to assess a person’s capacity to effectively direct a board have historically favoured career highlights that men have been more likely to accumulate.

“Common proxies such as CEO roles, number of board seats and tenure tend to be male-normed because they overlook gendered career pathways, structural barriers, and the fact that women are often appointed in more precarious contexts,” Wang says.

“My research argues that, when a director’s ability is inferred from these signals alone, women can appear less experienced or less capable, not because of lower underlying talent, but because the observable proxies systematically understate their opportunities to accumulate male-coded indicators of merit.”

In Australia, the 2025 Chief Executive Women Senior Executive Census reported that women hold only 10 per cent of CEO positions across the ASX 300.

Having previously held a CEO role is often seen as the gold-standard marker of director quality, but Wang argues using it as an evaluation criterion creates barriers for women.

“If women have historically had fewer opportunities to become CEOs, using prior CEO service as a benchmark mechanically disadvantages them,” she says.  

“Tenure as an indicator can also be misleading, because uninterrupted, long executive trajectories are easier to accumulate in careers that have not been shaped by unequal caring expectations or blocked promotion pathways.”

To challenge this bias, Wang is advocating for new assessment methods that capture the full complexity of women’s career journeys.

An index built to level the field

Wang is currently developing a Board Director Ability Index (BDAI) that evaluates candidates more rigorously – and more fairly.

“The index would combine career progression, appointment context, governance responsibilities, networks, qualifications, recognition and leadership narratives into transparent, context-adjusted measures rather than a black-box score,” she says.

“For example, when assessing appointment context, the BDAI would consider whether the appointment was made in crisis conditions, under volatility, or under reform pressure.”

This new tool could help regulators, investors and nomination committees alike. 

“I aim to help regulators assess whether reforms are genuinely improving board capability, help investors evaluate governance quality more objectively, and help firms build stronger and fairer board talent pipelines,” Wang says. 

According to the ANU researcher, failing to properly evaluate a board director’s true competence poses a real economic risk.  

“It can affect governance quality, strategic decisions, and ultimately firm performance,” she says. 

“Our research shows that when gender reforms genuinely empower women rather than simply increasing numbers, firms exhibit stronger innovation outcomes. That suggests high-quality board evaluation and genuine inclusion can have measurable economic consequences.”

Wang’s index could help Australia meet its gender equality targets, but its potential impact extends beyond that.

“My aim is to help correct a system that often undervalues women, but once you build a measure that is more context-sensitive and less dependent on traditional résumé markers, you get a better assessment of capability across genders,” she says. 

“If we never develop a better way to assess director ability, organisations will keep relying on narrow and biased proxies that can misidentify talent and reproduce biased leadership patterns.” 

The College is always keen to explore research collaborations with the public and private sector and to reconnect with alumni. Please get in touch if you would like to know more about partnering with us.

Image credit: Tim Rendall/CBE