Gender Equality in a Changing World

6. Women still lag behind men in reaching leadership roles

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of key gender gaps in leadership and representation in the public and private sector and in politics, as well as the social, economic and institutional factors standing in the way of equality. The chapter then explores policy options to improve gender representation in management and senior leadership in the private sector and reduce gender gaps in political representation.

Key findings

• Gender gaps in aspirations to leadership emerge early through socialisation processes, with boys far more likely than girls to want to work in management or elected political positions. These early gaps foreshadow women’s underrepresentation in leadership and decision-making positions in adulthood, with evidence of the leaky pipeline across all areas of private sector and public leadership.

• Women are underrepresented among board members, CEOs and presidents in the private sector; among legislators at all levels of government; among members of cabinet and ministers; and among country leaders (e.g. presidents, prime ministers or chancellors).

• Several factors contribute to the underrepresentation of women in leadership, including gendered perceptions of skills and abilities, motherhood penalties, gender differences in actual and expected behaviours, and experiences of harassment and discrimination. Other key factors play a role in specific areas. In business, a lack of transparency in selection criteria, gendered differences in work assignments and experiences, and a lack of women role models and mentors matter.

• In politics, gendered party recruitment, differences in electoral systems, gender gaps in campaign financing, violence and harassment of women public figures and differences in media coverage drive down women’s participation. Voter bias and (mis)perceptions about the electability of women also contribute to the underrepresentation of women in politics. For example, nearly one‑quarter of women and men in EU and OECD countries with available data believe that men make better political leaders than women and nearly one‑fifth believe that women do not have the necessary qualities and skills to fill positions of responsibility in politics. Even though not a majority, this may contribute to negative perceptions about women’s electoral chances and lead to strategic voting against women.

• To tackle underrepresentation of women in leadership, governments have implemented disclosure requirements, quotas and targets supporting gender balance on boards and in politics. Simultaneous interventions to change social and policy environments in business have included promoting the transparency and objectivity of hiring and promotion procedures; engaging with social partners, civil society and educational institutions to raise awareness about gender equality in leadership; and introducing targeted sector-specific initiatives to tackle gender inequality, especially in men-dominated industries and occupations. In politics, governments implement rules around sitting times, offer on-site childcare for legislators, and work toward eliminating the violence and harassment experienced by women politicians.

Ensuring that women and men are well represented at all levels of decision-making in all areas, including in politics and business, is important for a just and egalitarian society. Diverse perspectives in leadership can foster fairer and more representative decision-making.

This chapter proceeds as follows. Section 6.1 provides an overview of key gender gaps in leadership outcomes in the public and private sector, as well as the social, economic and institutional culprits standing in the way of equality. Section 6.2 explores policy options and combinations to improve gender representation in management and senior leadership positions in business and reduce gender gaps in political representation.

6.1. Background: Gender gaps in key outcomes in leadership and representation

Taking a life course approach, this section first looks at childhood and youth and gender gaps in leadership aspirations and expectations. It then turns to adulthood to explore the persistent underrepresentation of women in positions of leadership in management in the public and private sector, as well as in politics.

6.1.1. Childhood and youth: Girls are less likely to aspire to and expect to work in leadership positions than boys

Gender differences in career aspirations and expectations develop early, with girls and boys demonstrating significant differences in anticipated future occupations by age 15 (see Chapter 4) (OECD, 2023[1]). These gender differences extend to certain leadership positions, with boys accounting for about two‑thirds of 15‑year‑old students stating that they expect to be working as managers and managing directors and chief executives by age 30 years (Figure 6.1). Some leadership positions, however, are more gender balanced, with girls representing nearly half of all students aged 15 years stating they expect to be legislators and senior officials.

Figure 6.1. Teen boys are more likely than teen girls to expect to work in certain leadership positions

Distribution of 15‑year‑old students expecting to work in leadership positions by gender, EU and OECD averages, 2022

Note: EU and OECD averages are unweighted. Data for Cyprus and Luxembourg are not available. Children are asked what kind of job they expect to have when they are about 30 years old. Children’s responses are subsequently coded according to ISCO‑08. All managers is ISCO code 1 (Managers). “Legislators and senior officials” is ISCO code 111. “Managing directors and chief executives” is ISCO code 112. As much as possible, ISCO codes for each observation are converted into three‑digit ISCO codes, but some observations have only one‑ or two‑digit ISCO codes, preventing further specification. Country-gender-occupation cell sizes of less than five are dropped. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 6.A.

Source: OECD Secretariat calculations using publicly available microdata from the 2022 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html#data).

Key factors behind gender differences in career aspirations and expectations

One of the main reasons for differences in boys’ and girls’ aspirations to and expectations of leadership positions is the gendered socialisation process, which teaches children – explicitly or implicitly – about expected gender norms and behaviours from the moment they are born. Media (Box 6.1), parents, teachers and peers all contribute to this socialisation process.

Parents, for example, are more likely to talk to boys than to girls about politics, and talking about politics is an important determinant of young people’s interest in politics and later political ambition (Bos et al., 2021[2]; Campbell and Wolbrecht, 2006[3]). Encouragement from parents, friends, teachers, grandparents and coaches also matters, with a smaller share of young women than young men reporting that they have been urged to run for elected office later in life (Lawless and Fox, 2013[4]). Through play, peers also reinforce and uphold gender norms and stereotypes. Typical play by boys, for instance, is riskier and more competitive, while typical play for girls is more nurturing and domestic (Kung, 2021[5]). Differential reactions from teachers and parents to risks in childhood play entrench these patterns and lead to “less self-confidence and self-esteem for women in work contexts” (Fitzsimmons, Callan and Paulsen, 2014[6]). Taken together, these factors can create an environment in which girls and young women do not see themselves as leaders.

Box 6.1. Girls and women are stereotypically represented, objectified and sexualised in the media

In media and in advertising, women are often stereotypically represented, objectified, and sexualised. Exposure to such representations of women may enhance stereotypical beliefs, foster sexist behaviour, incite harassment and violence in men, and stifle women’s career ambitions. It may also lead to the internalisation of (unattainable) beauty ideals and sexist attitudes, as well as creating an acceptance for and tolerance of abuse and body shaming (Santoniccolo et al., 2023[7]). Even though such representations persist, in a recent EU survey, over 50% of respondents believe that women and men are treated the same way by media and advertising (Eurobarometer, 2024[8]).

Stereotypical and sexualised representations of women in the media and in advertising may partly reflect that women are underrepresented as decision-makers. Of 1 492 content creators across the top 100 films of 2022, women represented only 24% of directors, writers and producers (Smith, Pieper and Wheeler, 2023[9]). In other media, such as public broadcasting organisations, women are also underrepresented as decision-makers, but substantial progress has been made in recent years. In EU‑27 countries, for example, women held 38% of executive positions and 27% of CEO positions in public broadcaster organisations in 2024. This is up from 30% and 13%, respectively, in 2014 (EIGE, 2024[10]).

6.1.2. Adulthood: Women face considerable barriers to leadership

Early differences between boys’ and girls’ aspirations to and expectations of leadership foreshadow significant gender gaps in leadership in adulthood, where gender norms and stereotypes, business practices, structural barriers and bias and discrimination combine to result in women’s underrepresentation in leadership and decision-making positions, especially at the highest levels.

Women are underrepresented in private and public sector leadership

On average, across EU and OECD countries, only about one‑third of managers in the private sector are women, but there is considerable variation across countries (Figure 6.2). In Japan, for example, only 13% of private sector managers are women, compared to 44% in Colombia.

Figure 6.2. Only about one‑third of managers are women in EU and OECD countries

Share (%) of managers who are women, private sector, 2023 or latest

Note: EU‑21 and OECD‑31 averages are unweighted. For all EU countries plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland less the Slovak Republic, private sector is calculated as all NACE activities less “Public administration and defence; compulsory social security” (code O). Data on managers are calculated as ISCO‑08 code 1. For Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Slovak Republic and Türkiye, data refer to the private sector, as defined by the ILO, and to ISCO‑08 code 1. Data for the United States are from 2024. Data for Denmark, Estonia and Japan are from 2022. Data for Israel are from 2021. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 6.A.

Source: For Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Slovak Republic, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States, ILOSTAT Data Explorer “Employment by sex, occupation and public/private sector (thousands)” (https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/). For all EU countries plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland less the Slovak Republic, Eurostat “Employment by sex, age, occupation and economic activity (from 2008 onwards, NACE Rev. 2) (1 000)” (https://doi.org/10.2908/LFSA_EISN2).

There is also wide variation across industries. In the EU‑27, only 14% of managers in construction and 24% of managers in manufacturing are women. This compares to 66% in human health and social work activities and 63% in education (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A1) (Eurostat, 2024[11]), and largely mirrors patterns observed across occupations (see Chapter 5).

In publicly-listed companies and top levels of management, evidence of the leaky pipeline – the slowly decreasing share of women as one climbs the career ladder – and the glass ceiling – an invisible barrier to women’s advancement – is even starker (OECD, 2023[12]; 2023[1]). Among EU‑27 countries, for example, women represent only 30% of board members of the largest publicly-listed companies and only 8% of CEOs (Figure 6.3).

In addition, the representation of women is low among decision-makers in social partner organisations – on the side of both trade unions and businesses, and at both the national and European Union level. In 2024, for example, women accounted for only 34% of the highest decision-makers of national-level social partner organisations representing workers in Europe and only 28% of their presidents or chairs (EIGE, 2024[13]; 2024[14]). In national social partner organisations representing employers, women accounted for only 20% of the total number of members of their highest decision-making bodies and only 8% of their presidents or chairs (EIGE, 2024[15]; 2024[16]).

Figure 6.3. Women are underrepresented among board members and CEOs

Share (%) of board seats and CEO roles in the largest publicly-listed companies held by women, 2024 or latest

Note: EU‑27 and OECD‑37 averages are unweighted. ↗ indicates that the data is sorted according to this series in ascending order. Data for EU countries plus Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom are an average of data collection carried out twice in 2024 by EIGE. See EIGE (2024[17]) for more details. Data for EU countries plus Norway, Iceland, the United Kingdom refer to the top 50 companies of the primary blue‑chip index, an index maintained by the stock exchange that covers the largest companies by market capitalisation or by market trades. Companies must be registered in the country to be counted in that country. Data for all other countries refers to the MSCI ACWI Index. See Matanda, Wang and Emelianova (2023[18]) and Csonka and Milhomem (2024[19]). Data refer to 2022 values for Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United States. Board members include all members of the highest decision-making body, such as the chairperson, non-executive directors, senior executives and employee representatives. CEO refers to the Chief Executive Officer or equivalent position. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 6.A.

Source: For EU countries plus Norway, Iceland and the United Kingdom, EIGE “Gender Statistics Database Indicator G17. The proportion and number of women and men among presidents and chief executive officers (CEO) of the largest nationally registered companies listed on the national stock exchange” (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs) and EIGE “Gender Statistics Database Indicator G18. The proportion and number of women and men among members of the highest decision-making body of the largest nationally registered companies listed on the national stock exchange” (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs). For all other countries, Matanda, Wang and Emelianova (2023[18]) and Csonka and Milhomem (2024[19]).

Public sector employment also shows clear evidence of the leaky pipeline (OECD, 2023[1]). In EU countries, for example, women accounted for 60% of all employees in the public sector, but only 48% of middle managers and 43% of senior managers (Figure 6.4). As with the private sector, some policy areas within the public sector fare better in terms of representation of women at the top. Women are, for example, more likely to be managers in ministries covering socio-cultural functions compared to economic, infrastructure or basic functions. One area with particularly striking gender gaps is central banking. Across EU‑27 countries, there was not a single woman Governor of a national Central Bank in 2023 (EIGE, 2024[20]), and at the EU-level, women represented only 8% of members of decision-making bodies of the European Central Bank (ECB) (EIGE, 2024[21]). It was also not until 2019 that the ECB appointed its first woman President.

Justice systems – including judges and front-line justice (Box 6.3) – also show evidence of notable gender inequalities.

Figure 6.4. Public sector employment shows evidence of the leaky pipeline to management

Share (%) of public sector employees and managers who are women, 2024 or latest

Note: EU and OECD averages are unweighted. There are data for 22 EU countries for all four series and for 33 OECD countries for total public sector employment, 31 OECD countries for all management and 23 OECD countries for middle and senior management. Total public sector employment includes staff at all levels, including middle management (Level 2 administrators) and senior management (Level 1 administrators). For total public sector employment, data represent varying years: Canada and the United States (2024); Austria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Japan, Mexico, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United Kingdom (2023); Australia and Israel (2021); and Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Sweden (2020). For management, all data are from 2024 except Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Japan, Mexico, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Türkiye (2023) and Israel (2021). Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 6.A.

Source: For total public sector employment, data for Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Sweden are from OECD Data Explorer “Public employment and representation – Government at a glance indicators, 2023 edition” (http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/kq), while all other countries are from ILOSTAT Data Explorer “Employment by sex, age and public/private sector (thousands)” (https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/). For public sector management, data for Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Türkiye are from ILOSTAT Data Explorer “Employment by sex, occupation and public/private sector (thousands)” (https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/), while all countries are from EIGE “Gender Statistics Database Indicator G8. The proportion of women among the highest-ranking civil servants in the Member States” (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs).

Box 6.2. Spotlight on intersectionality: Management, migrant status and disability status

Migrants and people with disability face barriers to reaching the top that can compound gendered disadvantage. Women with disability and first-generation migrant women, for instance, are less likely to be managers than women without disability and non-migrant women (measured as “third generation or more”), respectively (Figure 6.5). Men with disability and men who are migrants also face a disadvantage in reaching the top, although they are more likely to reach the top than women with disability and women who are migrants.

Figure 6.5. Migrants and persons with disability are less likely to be managers, especially when they are women

Share (%) of women and men (15‑64) who have a migrant background or disability who are managers, by migrant and disability status, EU‑27 average, 2023 or latest

Note: EU‑27 average is a weighted average. “Total” is calculated using estimates by migrant status. Data for migrant status is from 2023. Data for disability status is from 2022. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 6.A.

Source: Eurostat “Employment by sex, age, migration status, occupation and educational attainment level” (https://doi.org/10.2908/LFSA_EGAISEDM) and “Employment by level of disability (activity limitation) and occupation” (https://doi.org/10.2908/LFSA_EGAIDL).

Explaining leadership gaps in the public and private sector

The underrepresentation of women at the top, especially at the highest levels, is the effect of multiple factors experienced throughout the life course, including entrenched gender stereotypes and norms as well as gender-blind policies, both in the public and private sectors (Fitzsimmons, Callan and Paulsen, 2014[6]; OECD, 2017[22]; OECD, 2023[1]; Son Hing et al., 2023[23]). Some important key factors and barriers include:

• Perceptions of women’s skills and abilities: On average, in 2019, only 88% of women and men in EU countries with available data believed that women were equally as good at being managers as men and only 74% disagreed that men make better business executives than women do (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A2) (Fundamental Rights Agency, 2020[24]; WVS, 2023[25]). Perceptions of women as less competent at management likely reflect that strong leadership is often associated with stereotypically masculine traits (e.g. assertiveness). Although traditionally feminine traits (e.g. empathy, communality) are valued among leaders, this is only after stereotypically masculine traits (e.g. dominance) have been met (Vial and Napier, 2018[26]).

• Biased assessments of performance: Perceptions that women are not as good at management translate into biased assessments of performance. Identical performance by women and men in the workplace has been found to be interpreted and evaluated differently (Turban, Freeman and Waber, 2017[27]). Men’s success in the workplace, for instance, is generally attributed to skills, whether the role is perceived as traditionally feminine or masculine, while women’s success is attributed to luck when the role is typically associated with men (Hamilton and Lordan, 2023[28]). Even in contexts where women may have objectively equivalent or better performance to men – e.g. measured through previous performance assessments or the use of sensor-based technologies – gender gaps in promotions persist, indicating potential bias (Turban, Freeman and Waber, 2017[27]; Benson, Danielle and Shue, 2022[29]). Indeed, in a recent survey, 40% of respondents in EU‑27 countries, on average, disagreed that a woman has the same chance of getting promoted as a man (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A3) (Eurobarometer, 2024[8]).

• Expected behaviours and the “double bind”: Women leaders who demonstrate overly “masculine” behaviours are often evaluated negatively, but women leaders who demonstrate overly “feminine” behaviours are also evaluated negatively. This “double bind” makes it extremely difficult for women leaders to succeed and may explain women’s disproportionate levels of burnout, as they must constantly assess, adjust and adapt their behaviours to the setting (Trzebiatowski, McCluney and Hernandez, 2023[30]; Zheng, Kark and Meister, 2018[31]).

• Motherhood penalties and career breaks: Due to gender norms and the availability and structure of policy supports, women are more likely than men to interrupt their careers for childbearing/rearing, and these interruptions are often longer than those of men. Career interruptions – regardless of the reason – come with penalties: employees miss out on opportunities for promotion and skill development, lose momentum in their career trajectories, and work fewer years overall (Reitman and Schneer, 2005[32]). All of these negatively affect progression up the corporate ladder. On top of career interruptions, assumptions about working mothers – stemming from stereotypes and the fact that women are, on average, undertaking a greater share of unpaid caregiving responsibilities than men – only reinforce the belief that women are less committed to work, creating a vicious cycle (Fitzsimmons, Callan and Paulsen, 2014[6]; Chung, 2018[33]; Son Hing et al., 2023[23]). This vicious cycle is reinforced by institutional barriers including a lack of access to childcare and after-school care, as well as a lack of access to long-term care for elderly family members and family members with disabilities.

• Self-confidence, self-esteem and self-promotion: Climbing to the top of the corporate ladder requires not only skill and ability, but also self-confidence and self-esteem, as well as the ability to promote oneself. Across countries and cultures, men “consistently report higher self-esteem than women” (Casale, 2020[34]). Men are also more likely to engage in self-promotion, especially in relation to tasks perceived as “male‑typed” (Exley and Kessler, 2022[35]).

• Hiring and promotion processes and practices: Non-transparent selection processes and selection criteria, lack of gender balance on selection panels, and gender bias in job advertisements may create barriers for women in recruitment and career progression, especially at the top (OECD, 2020[36]; European Parliament, 2022[37]).

• Work assignments and experiences: Women’s management experience is more often related to human resources and communication, while men’s is more often in general or line management. As general and line managers constitute the main pool for recruitment for the highest positions, women’s early-stage management opportunities are less likely to give them adequate experiences, skills and abilities for advancement (European Parliament, 2022[37]).

• Experiences of harassment and discrimination: Women’s movement up the career ladder may be hampered by harassment and discrimination. For instance, microaggressions – remarks or behaviours, whether overt or not, that humiliate or dismiss someone based on their identity – are exceedingly common in workplaces for women, especially women of colour and women with disability (Devillard et al., 2021[38]; Field et al., 2023[39]). Over time, microaggressions (and related protective behaviours) contribute to job dissatisfaction (Algner and Lorenz, 2022[40]), with women more likely to consider quitting their job and feeling close to burnout (Field et al., 2023[39]). Indeed, in a recent survey in the EU, 51% of respondents believed that men are treated better at work, compared to 6% who think women are treated better and 40% who believe women and men are treated the same (Eurobarometer, 2024[8]). Although harassment and discrimination are illegal in most EU and OECD countries, and many cases are brought forward every year, harassment and discrimination are difficult to prove and hard to measure (Algner and Lorenz, 2022[40]), meaning the onus of pursuing justice often falls to the victim. Harassment and discrimination can therefore persist within an organisation for a long time before made known or addressed.

• Networking, role models and mentors: Men may have an advantage in climbing the corporate ladder as they may have greater access to informal networking and socialising opportunities with other men who are in leadership positions, such as at after-work socials. Since greater social interactions between a manager and an employee are linked to greater promotability, this creates a self-perpetuating cycle in which men tend to disproportionately promote other men, who then continue the pattern (Son Hing et al., 2023[23]; Cullen and Perez-Truglia, 2023[41]). Role models and mentors may help to break this cycle, but may not be sufficient – especially if women are “over-mentored” but “under-sponsored,” where sponsoring is a more assertive form of mentorship where a senior executive advocates for the career progression of a particular individual (Ibarra, 2019[42]).

Box 6.3. Justice systems face notable gender inequalities

Leaky pipelines in the judiciary

In contrast to most other aspects of leadership, women represent over half of all judges in most EU and OECD countries (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A4) (OECD, 2023[43]; Eurostat, 2024[44]; EIGE, 2024[45]). Nevertheless, the leaky pipeline persists, with a downward trend in women’s representation as one moves up to higher levels of the judicial system. In EU‑25 countries, for example, women represent 63% of professional judges, but only 43% of judges on the Supreme Court (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A4) (Eurostat, 2024[44]; EIGE, 2024[45]; OECD, 2023[43]). At the level of the European Union, there is even lower representation of women, with women accounting for only 22% of members of the European Court of Justice, 30% of members of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and 33% of members of the General Court in 2023 (EIGE, 2024[46]). Besides representation, there are other channels through which women may be disadvantaged in high-level political or judicial positions. For instance, in U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings, men and white Senators are more likely to interrupt Justice candidates who are women and people of colour (Boyd, Collins and Ringhand, 2023[47]).

Gender inequality in front-line justice

Around the world, police work and police culture are “rooted in hegemonic masculinity” (Clinkinbeard, Solomon and Rief, 2020[48]), so it is perhaps unsurprising that women represent less than 30% of police officers in 21 out of 25 EU and OECD countries (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A5) (Eurostat, 2024[44]). Even when women enter policing, however, challenges remain that may lead to an increased exit rate and a lower rate of promotion. Women, for example, have found it difficult to gain acceptance in police forces due to the strong masculine norms associated with policing. Women, too, have reported facing overtly hostile behaviour, including sexual harassment. To top it all off, work-life balance issues are problematic in this setting as well, with front line justice often demanding long and unusual hours of work (Angehrn, Fletcher and Carleton, 2021[49]; Alexander and Charman, 2023[50]).

Box 6.4. Glass cliffs: Women’s leadership in times of crisis

Even when women reach the top, their appointment to leadership positions may reflect underlying gender norms. For instance, women may be more likely to be appointed or promoted to high-level positions in times of crisis or poor performance, reflecting the perception that a woman leader can signal a significant change in direction to the outside world – but also the stereotype that women have better crisis management skills due to their nurturing and caring qualities. This “think crisis-think female” effect creates a “glass cliff,” whereby women are placed in exceedingly challenging leadership positions that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to achieve the same status or level of success as men appointed under less difficult circumstances. Indeed, in these positions – characterised by declines in stock market value or unstable employment, for example – women are at high risk of being held responsible in the event of failure (Galsanjigmed and Sekiguchi, 2023[51]; Morgenroth et al., 2020[52]; Reinwald, Zaia and Kunze, 2022[53]; Bruckmüller et al., 2014[54]; Ryan et al., 2016[55]; Kulich et al., 2015[56]; Glass and Cook, 2016[57]). There may also be a dearth of men interested in taking on a high-risk position in times of crisis, though this is harder to measure.

Women are making progress in reaching elected positions, but major gaps persist

Over the past half century, there has been tremendous progress in women’s representation in politics. The share of national legislators (i.e. parliamentarians and congresspersons) who are women in OECD countries increased from an average of less than 10% in 1974 to over 30% in 2024 (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A6) (IPU, 2024[58]). Other levels of political office present a similar picture, with women representing around one‑third of all elected individuals at the regional level (34%) and the local level (31%) in EU‑27 countries (Figure 6.6). The supranational European Parliament has achieved a slightly higher share of legislators who are women (37% in 2024).

Women are also underrepresented among national ministers and cabinet members, accounting for about one in three ministers in both EU‑27 and OECD‑38 countries in 2023. Similar to private and public sector management, ministers are often given portfolios reflective of gender norms and stereotypes – with women more likely to receive responsibility for family or social affairs and men more likely to receive responsibility for finance and the economy or foreign affairs (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A7) (IPU, 2023[59]; EIGE, 2024[60]; Kroeber and Hüffelmann, 2021[61]; UN Women, 2024[62]). This is also found to occur in committees of the European Parliament (Wax, 2023[63]).

Figure 6.6. Women are underrepresented across all levels of government in most EU and OECD countries

Share (%) of members of various levels of government who are women, 2024

Note: EU and OECD averages are unweighted. Data are available for 27 EU countries and 38 OECD countries for members of national legislature. For the European Parliament, data are available for all EU countries and for 22 OECD countries. For local councils, data are available for all EU countries and for 26 OECD countries. For regional authorities, data are available for 19 EU countries and 20 OECD countries. Data on members of national legislatures as of 31 December 2024. Data on the European Parliament (EP) cover the president and members of the EP comprised of representatives elected by the EU Member States. This is a supranational legislative parliament, exercising powers similar to those of the national legislatures. Data on the EP represent the average of the share of members of the EP who are women across all four quarters (Q1 through Q4). Data on regional assemblies cover the representative assemblies of regions (i.e. regional authorities). The term region refers to regional authorities that are endowed with self-government acting as the territorial authorities between the central government and local authorities. Data on local councils cover the representative assemblies of municipalities, cities or towns. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 6.A.

Source: Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Parline “Historical data on women in national parliaments” (https://data.ipu.org/historical-women/), EIGE “Gender Statistics Database Indicator G1b. The proportion of women in the European Parliament” (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs), EIGE “Gender Statistics Database Indicator G2. The proportion of women in the regional assemblies of the Member States, where appropriate” (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs) and EIGE “Gender Statistics Database Indicator G3a. The proportion of women in local assemblies in the Member States [starting from 2011]” (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs).

Box 6.5. Spotlight on intersectionality: Political representation and race and ethnicity

Minority representation in politics means that diverse perspectives and backgrounds can influence decision-making processes. Yet, in many EU and OECD countries, data on ethnicity and race are not collected, making it impossible to assess the presence of minority voices in legislatures and social and economic outcomes more broadly. Even in those countries where data are collected, it is often not collected in a systematic, harmonised or consistent manner. Some countries with available data include Australia, where in 2022, about 10% of parliamentarians had a non-European or Indigenous background, compared to 24% of the population. Of the 13 non-European and 10 First Nations representatives elected, most were women (Poole, 2022[64]). In Canada, in the most recent election in 2021, 16% of members of parliament (MPs) were racialised minorities, less than their share of the total population (26%) (Ie, 2023[65]). Among the MPs who were visible minorities, 34% were women (Black and Griffith, 2022[66]).

Turning to the highest positions in government – the elected executive (e.g. prime ministers, chancellors or presidents) – there has also been considerable progress, but major gaps remain. Only 79% of the 43 EU and OECD countries have ever had the executive office held by a woman and only 21% had an executive who was a woman as of 29 January 2025 (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A8) (Council on Foreign Relations, 2024[67]).

Ever having had a woman executive does not capture time spent in office or the number of unique women who have held office. Looking at the period between 1947 and 2025, a woman was the executive in only 10% of the 79 years, on average, across OECD‑38 countries (Figure 6.7). And, in many countries, there has only ever been one woman who has held this position and often for a relative short period of time. Canada, for example, has only ever had a woman Prime Minister once, appointed to office for only 132 days. Austria has also only had a woman federal Chancellor once, in office for only 218 days. Other countries who have only had a woman executive once and for a short tenure include Belgium (340 days) and Portugal (155 days).

Some of these short tenures may reflect biases and barriers to women reaching and staying in politics, including women’s re‑electability, but some of them may also reflect women’s departures from politics, as suggested by Lazarus, Steigerwalt and Clark (2022[68]). A recent study, for example, noted that online harassment, abuse and threats of violence contributed to the poorer retention rate of women MPs in the United Kingdom (UK Parliament, 2022[69]). Understanding why women may choose to voluntarily leave politics at a higher rate than men is particularly important given women’s continued underrepresentation.

Figure 6.7. Many countries have only ever had women as leaders for a short period of time

Share (%) of years between 1947 and 2025 when there was a woman political executive (prime minister, president or chancellor)

Note: EU‑27 and OECD‑38 averages are unweighted. A country is counted as having had a woman executive (e.g. president, prime minister, chancellor) in a given year as long as a woman occupied at least one of the executive positions for at least one day of a given year. Given that Switzerland has seven leaders in its Federal Council and that at least one of these seven has been a woman since 1993, this approach leads to greater overestimation than in other countries, where there are just one or two executives (i.e. a head of government and/or a head of state). To correct for this, the following approach is used. The number of men and the number of women who held a position on the Federal Council for at least one day in every year between 1947 and 2025 is calculated. The total number of women and men ranges from seven to 11 people given that elections may happen in the middle of a year. Between the 1947 and 2025 period, there were 530 men-years and 86 women-years, meaning that the share of women over this entire period was 14%. A specific year is coded as having a gender equal share of women as long as the share is above 40%. This occurred for the first time in 2010, when there was a total of five men and four women. In 2023, for the first time ever, three of the seven were women at the same time. Data from the Council of Foreign Relations “Women’s Power Index” are accurate to 1 December 2024. To bring the estimates up to 29 January 2025, data refer OECD Secretariat desk research. Data for this figure can be downloaded via Annex 6.A.

Source: Council of Foreign Relations (2024[67]) “Women’s Power Index” and OECD Secretariat desk research using national sources on elections between 1 December 2024 and 29 January 2025.

Barriers to women reaching political leadership

The underrepresentation of women in politics is the result of numerous factors that aggregate throughout the life course to create barriers to entry and disadvantages for women (OECD, 2019[70]), as well as political-institutional arrangements that favour men. Some important reasons for this underrepresentation include:

• Perceptions of women’s abilities: In a recent EU survey, nearly 20% of respondents believed that women do not have the necessary qualities and skills to fill positions of responsibility in politics (European Union, 2017[71]). Such negative perceptions create an environment in which women may internalise the belief that they are not qualified to run. Indeed, women may be less likely to believe that they will be or are qualified for office, and women tend to wait until they are “more qualified” to run for office than men (Miller, 2016[72]; Boschma, 2017[73]), aligning with findings on gender gaps in self-confidence and self-promotion.

• Voter bias: Negative perceptions of women’s abilities to hold positions of responsibility in politics may fuel voter bias against women. Across OECD countries, for instance, 22% agree or strongly agree than men make better political leaders than women (see Online Annex Figure 6‑A9) (WVS, 2023[25]), though this is likely a low estimate in the face of social desirability bias. Although suggestive of gender bias in the electorate, survey evidence does not indicate the extent to which these perceptions may influence voting patterns and actual electoral outcomes. Significant research has been dedicated to this question, but no clear consensus has emerged – with some finding evidence that voters are biased against women (Eyméoud and Vertier, 2020[74]; Le Barbanchon and Sauvagnat, 2021[75]; Saltzer and McGrath, 2022[76]) and some finding evidence that gender does not impact voters’ choices (Kage, Rosenbluth and Tanaka, 2018[77]; Brechenmacher, 2018[78]; Schwarz and Coppock, 2022[79]; Poutvaara and Graefe, 2024[80]). Evidence also shows that party affiliation matters for the extent of voter bias against (or in favour) women (Saltzer and McGrath, 2022[76]; Pas, Aaldering and Steenvoorden, 2022[81]; Poutvaara and Graefe, 2024[80]). Yet, even if an individual voter is not biased against women, perceptions of bias against women in the electorate at large or assumptions about the electability of women may cause voters to vote strategically against women. In short, a voter may not vote for a woman candidate because they expect others to be biased against the candidate and do not think she stands a good chance of success (Lean In, 2020[82]). This behaviour and these misperceptions have been found to be at play in countries with party primary elections, where a candidate must succeed in a within-party election before advancing to the general election against other party candidates (Bateson, 2020[83]; Corbett et al., 2022[84]).

• Motherhood penalty in politics: Women legislators have fewer children than men legislators and are less likely to be in stable, partnered relationships (Rosenbluth, Kalla and Teele, 2015[85]; Joshi and Goehrung, 2020[86]; Fiva and King, 2023[87]), suggesting that family obligations, especially when children are young, may discourage mothers from entering politics. Gender stereotypes and norms mean that a greater share of unpaid responsibilities fall on women and such responsibilities limit one’s ability to relocate to a new city, travel regularly and work long hours – tasks typically required of (and associated with) politicians (Ouellet and Shiab, 2019[88]; OECD, 2019[70]). At the same time, public perceptions of mothers can be at odds with public perceptions of political leaders (Menasce Horowitz and Goddard, 2023[89]; Stalsburg, 2010[90]). Caregiving and household responsibilities may also affect potential women politicians’ opportunities to engage in politics and limit their time to nurture an interest in politics (Fraile and Gomez, 2017[91]; Sánchez-Vítores, 2018[92]).

• Experiences of violence and harassment, especially online: Although both women and men in politics may experience violence and harassment, such acts against women often take the form of sexist hate speech or gender-based comments or threats, including threats of rape or violence (Council of Europe, 2019[93]; Guerin and Maharasingam-Shah, 2020[94]). For instance, in a survey in Europe, 85% of participating women members of parliament (MPs) reported suffering psychological violence during their term of office, 68% reported being the target of comments on their physical appearance or based on gender stereotypes, 58% reported being the target of online sexist attacks on social networks, 47% reported receiving death threats or threats of rape or beating, and 25% reported suffering sexual violence (Council of Europe, 2019[93]). Indeed, in a recent EU survey, 54% of respondents believe that men are treated better in politics, compared to 6% who believe that women are treated better, and 37% who believe that women and men are treated the same way (Eurobarometer, 2024[8]). These experiences may discourage women from joining or staying in politics, or prevent them from aiming for higher leadership roles (OECD, 2023[1]). Misinformation and disinformation campaigns are also disproportionately targeted at women, featuring “humiliating and sexually charged images” and framing women as “inherently untrustworthy, unintelligent, or too emotional or too libidinous to hold office or participate in democratic politics” (Di Meco and Wilfore, 2021[95]).

• Party recruitment: Parties want to win elections and will put forward the candidates that they believe are most likely to succeed. This means that any (perceived) bias against women in the electorate will translate into bias in party recruitment (OECD, 2019[70]). But parties may also have their own inherent biases against women, acting as “gatekeepers” to politics. Evidence of party bias has cropped up across EU and OECD countries (Ouellet and Shiab, 2019[88]; ANU News, 2022[96]; Casas-Arce and Saiz, 2015[97]; Esteve-Volart and Bagues, 2012[98]; O’Neil, 2018[99]).

• Electoral systems and political structures: Political institutions play an important role in party recruitment and the representation of women. Compared to majoritarian systems, proportional representation systems are linked to higher proportions of women elected. This is largely explained by the fact that proportional representation systems rely on larger constituencies that elect more than one representative. By contrast, majoritarian systems elect a single candidate, and there is often a strong incumbency advantage (Real, 2020[100]; European Parliament, 1997[101]; Ridley-Castle, 2023[102]; Brechenmacher, 2018[78]; Real, 2020[100]) and incentives for strategic voting (Bateson, 2020[83]; Corbett et al., 2022[84]). Electoral quotas – an important tool for increasing representation – are also more common in proportional representation than majoritarian systems, potentially amplifying the effects of proportional representation on women’s likelihood of being elected (Ridley-Castle, 2023[102]).

• Campaign funding: In countries where election campaigns are completely or mostly privately financed, gender gaps in campaign funding can create another hurdle for women in politics (OECD, 2019[70]; Ouellet and Shiab, 2019[88]; Lyytikkä, 2021[103]). But even when women and men are shown to raise similar amounts, women are more likely to rely on many small donations, while men are more likely to obtain large contributions from mega-donors, which means that fundraising requires more time and effort for women (Jenkins, 2007[104]). In Europe, where electoral systems rely mostly on public money, gender differences may still be present, particularly when candidates consider putting their names forward, since aspirants need to build name recognition to be nominated onto party lists (Brechenmacher, 2018[78]).

• Media coverage: Media coverage is, in many ways, strongly linked to electoral success (Lühiste and Banducci, 2016[105]). In a meta‑analysis covering over 25 000 politicians in over 750 000 media stories, evidence suggests that women candidates and politicians receive less media attention than men in proportional representation systems, while the gap is absent in majoritarian system (Van der Pas and Aaldering, 2020[106]). In addition to lower coverage under proportional representation, women politicians are also found to receive more media attention focused on their appearance and their personal life (Van der Pas and Aaldering, 2020[106]).

• Political ambition: Compared to similarly-placed men, women who are potential political candidates report less interest in running for political office (Piscopo and Kenny, 2020[107]; Lawless and Fox, 2022[108]). This is not entirely surprising: girls are socialised to the idea that leadership roles are male spaces, limiting political interest and ambition among girls from an early age (Bos et al., 2021[2]; Fraile and Sánchez‐Vítores, 2019[109]). Socialisation also teaches girls and women to be risk averse and less competitive than men, traits that are less suited to campaigning (Niederle and Vesterlund, 2007[110]; Brechenmacher, 2018[78]; Lawless and Fox, 2012[111]; Kanthak and Woon, 2014[112]; Preece and Stoddard, 2015[113]).

Box 6.6. Additional data sources on women in leadership

Beyond the indicators presented in this chapter and in the Online Annex, relevant data sources include:

• OECD Dashboard on Gender Gaps: Presents key indicators on gender inequalities in education, employment, governance and private and public leadership.

• OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA): Features data on students’ expectations concerning future careers.

• European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)’s Gender Statistics Database: Contains information on women and men in decision-making positions in the EU, covering politics, public administration, the judiciary, business and finance, social partner organisations and NGOs, media, education, science and research, sports and transportation, among others.

• Interparliamentary Union’s Parline Database: Contains detailed monthly information on women in national parliaments around the world from 1997 to the present, as well as data on the existence of specialised bodies on gender equality and women’s caucuses.

• 2017 and 2024 Eurobarometer Surveys on Gender Stereotypes: Explore opinions on gender equality in politics and at work.

• World Values Survey: Contains several important questions exploring attitudes and beliefs toward gender equality.

• OECD Social Institutions and Gender Index: Contains information on laws, social norms and practices relating to discrimination in the family, restricted physical integrity, restricted civil liberties and restricted access to productive and financial resources, including measures of political voice and women’s ability to hold public or political office.

6.2. Policy combinations to advance gender equality in leadership and representation

Using Table 6.1, this section applies the priority considerations of the conceptual framework included in Chapter 3 to advance gender equality in leadership and representation by exploring two examples of policy goals (priority consideration 1): tackling gender gaps in management and senior leadership positions in public and private sectors (Outcome A) and in political representation (Outcome B). These goals need to be accompanied by a results framework (priority considerations 1 and 4), whose indicators can be drawn from those presented in Section 6.1 and additional sources.

Table 6.1 is designed to assist policy makers in identifying the range of cross-portfolio policy and programme combinations (priority consideration 3) and planning for their evaluation (priority consideration 2). While the list of policy options is extensive, it does not pretend to be exhaustive. At the same time, not all policy options apply in all settings or contexts. Overall, Table 6.1 aims to encourage the consideration of different policy options as part of a cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder approach that works towards the achievement of gender equality outcomes.

Interventions, when they occur, can follow a life course approach. For example, starting in childhood, policy can combat gender norms and stereotypes and increase the talent pipeline of young girls and women through awareness campaigns; changes to school curricula and teaching materials; as well as youth leadership programmes, mentorships and networks of women leaders. Work-life balance policies – such as affordable, accessible and high-quality childcare and long-term care – can also make a great difference for women’s leadership and representation.

Supporting senior management and leadership in the public and private sector may require complementary interventions, such as disclosure requirements on gender balance in management positions and/or quotas or voluntary targets supporting gender balance on boards. Training and mentorship programmes, diversity and inclusion policies, networks, role model schemes, peer-to-peer support and advocacy initiatives also hold the potential to raise awareness, overcome biases and cultural resistance, and develop the female talent pipeline (OECD, 2023[1]). Different public interventions can support women’s representation in leadership positions in the public space – including requirements for public leadership positions, non-binding guidelines for public institutions, or the inclusion of gender equality goals in broader strategic frameworks, among others.

To support political representation, various governments have implemented rules around sitting times and/or offer on-site childcare for legislators. Governments are also working toward eliminating the violence and harassment experienced by women politicians (see Chapter 8) as evidence suggests that higher levels of election-related violence are associated with lower representation of women in political leadership (Wood, 2024[114]). Many governments have also used tools, such as electoral quotas or targets, to increase gender balance on candidate lists. In addition, political parties can adopt voluntarily gender quotas and other targeted actions, such as actively recruiting women or prioritising their nominations to promote the presence of women among candidates. Additionally, for appointed positions, governments have led by example, striving for gender balance in appointments, such as cabinet positions.

Specific illustrations of country practices and policy combinations are included in Section 6.2.2. Key policy developments in EU countries will also be spurred by the EU Directive on “Women on Boards” (Box 6.7). Countries are further making headway in supporting women’s representation in peacebuilding and the foreign service (Box 6.8).

The effectiveness of the policies and programmes outlined in Table 6.1 varies across countries and across time. Continuous monitoring and evaluation that incorporates a gender perspective (priority consideration 5) is essential for governments to understand the gendered effects of policies and programmes (see Chapters 2 and 3); ensure that policies and programmes are achieving their intended outcomes; identify strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement; improve decision-making, resource allocation and accountability; and inform future strategies (priority consideration 6). While international evidence offers valuable insights on similar interventions, the effectiveness of each policy and programme will depend on their specific design and context – including interactions with other interventions, socio‑economic and cultural factors, available resources, and institutional settings.

For example, binding gender quotas and voluntary targets have been shown to lead to tangible improvements in women’s board representation and drive progress over the short-term, but evidence also suggests that sustaining further progress may prove difficult (Denis, 2022[115]). Moreover, quotas and targets alone can produce unintended consequences, such as leading to a concentration of board memberships among a limited number of women (Rigolini and Huse, 2019[116]) or to smaller board sizes to facilitate compliance with the mandated threshold (Seierstad and Huse, 2017[117]). In this context, the implementation of complementary measures by governments and companies has proven instrumental to sustainably enhancing gender diversity in leadership roles and to changing social and policy environments – such as increasing the transparency and objectivity of hiring and promotion procedures; engaging with social partners, civil society and educational institutions to raise awareness about gender equality in leadership; and introducing targeted sector-specific initiatives to tackle gender inequality, especially in men-dominated industries and occupations (e.g. Hughes, Paxton and Krook (2017[118]), Sojo et al. (2016[119]), De Acutis, Weber and Wurm (2024[120]) and Harnay et al. (2024[121])).

Legislated and voluntary quotas can also support women’s representation in elected positions (Kerevel, 2019[122]), but their effectiveness depends on their level, the incentives to comply, and the sanctions for non-compliance (OECD, 2023[1]) and longer-term sustainability of progress also requires efforts to raise social awareness of the value of gender-balanced representation. Adopting electoral quotas or targets has also demonstrably improved gender balance in politics in many cases, but the effectiveness of various initiatives greatly depends on internal party culture. A supportive internal party environment can greatly amplify the benefits of legislated quotas, when they exist (OECD, 2019[70]).

Box 6.7. The EU Directive on “Women on Boards”

In 2022, the European Parliament adopted the Directive on gender balance among directors of listed companies (European Union, 2022[123]). Proposed by the European Commission ten years earlier, the Directive sets targets for large‑listed EU companies (above 250 employees), including that the under-represented gender accounts for at least 40% of non-executive board members or 33% of all directors by 30 June 2026. Member States have two years to transpose the Directive.

The Directive also establishes that the best qualified candidates for election or appointment to board positions should be selected based on a comparative analysis of their qualifications by applying neutrally formulated and unambiguous criteria to ensure that applicants are assessed objectively based on their individual merits, irrespective of gender. Large‑listed companies will also have to undertake individual commitments to reach gender balance among their executive board members.

Companies that fail to meet the objective of the Directive must report the reasons and the measures they are taking to address this shortcoming to the competent authorities. Member States will be required to set up a penalty system for companies that fail to meet the new standards by 2026. Penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. They could include fines and annulment of the contested director’s appointment. Member States will also publish information on companies that are reaching targets.

6.2.1. Key policy actions across EU and OECD countries

Table 6.1. Existing policy options to close gender gaps in management and senior leadership in the public and private sector (Outcome A) and political representation (Outcome B)

Outcomes	Policy options	Likely Ministries Involved									EU and OECD country examples
		Education – Culture	Labour – Social – Family	Health – Sports	Economy – Finance	Science – Technology – Digital	Env. – Agri. – Transport – Energy	Foreign – Defence – Interior	National Statistical Offices	Gender – Justice – Human Rights
Challenge gender stereotypes and norms
A, B	Ensure school curricula, textbooks and teaching materials – including early learnings materials – challenge gender norms and stereotypes.	X								X	Many countries
A, B	Launch awareness campaigns to encourage the participation of women in politics, increase the visibility of women leaders (including mothers) and/or ensure better understanding of the benefits of gender equality in representation.	X								X	BEL, CZE, CYP, GRC, HRV, HUN, ISL, LUX, MLT, SLV
Provide opportunities for learning and skills development
A, B	Support training and skills development programmes for women considering positions of leadership.	X								X	COL, ESP, HUN, IRL, JPN, MLT, NLD, PRT, ROU
A, B	Build networks of (women) leaders to facilitate mentorships and support talented women.		X							X	DEU, ESP, JPN, NLD, ROU
B	Raise awareness, including among decision-makers in the media and politics, on the challenges faced by women politicians.	X								X	CZE, FIN, MEX, MLT, ROU
Build a strong and gender transformative social protection system
A, B	Provide well-paid parental and paternity leave, including to political leaders, supporting take‑up by fathers and a better distribution of unpaid work.		X							X	Many countries
A, B	Provide high-quality flexible, accessible and affordable childcare, including out-of-school care, and long-term and elderly care, including independent living solutions.		X							X	Many countries
B	Provide on-site childcare in legislatures to support parents of young children.		X							X	AUS, CAN, DEU, ESP, GRC, IRL, JPN, LVA, NZL, SWE
A, B	Introduce policies that support work-life balance in leadership, such as a right to disconnect, a right to request flexible working arrangements (and a return to full-time work) and/or restrictions on late‑hours parliamentary sittings and parliamentary sittings and voting during summer or other holiday periods (see Chapter 5).		X							X	AUS, AUT, BEL, CAN, CYP, DEU, ESP, FRA, GRC, HRV, IRL, ITA, KOR, LUX, NZL, PRT, SLV, SVK, SWE
Protect women and foster safety
A, B	Conduct awareness campaigns and/or provide training programmes to prevent gender-based violence against women in leadership, especially women politicians.	X	X					X		X	MLT, SWE
A, B	Introduce policies and programmes to prevent workplace harassment (both online and in person), detect and punish perpetrators and support victims/survivors (see Chapter 8).	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	Many countries
B	Develop a code of conduct and code of ethics for legislative staff and legislators to ensure gender-sensitive behaviour and language.		X							X	AUT, DEU, DNK, LVA, SWE
B	Implement, amend or expand sexual harassment and discrimination policies pertaining to politicians and/or provide women politicians with support services, judicial recourse and protection in the event of harassment, whether online or in person.		X	X				X		X	CAN, DNK, GRC, LUX, SWE
Implement gender transformative legislation, regulations and procedures
A, B	Implement and enforce equal pay, pay equity and pay transparency legislation in political, private and public sector environments, including through pay reporting and pay auditing (see Chapter 5).		X							X	Many countries
A, B	Offer family-friendly environments and options (e.g. changing tables, nursing stations, proxy voting) to ensure mothers are not excluded.		X							X	AUS, AUT, CAN, DEU, HUN, IRL, LUX, NZL, POL, SWE
A	Introduce labels, certifications and/or awards for companies introducing policies that support gender equality and work-life balance (e.g. pay, childcare, family-friendly workplace policies, parental leave, leadership).		X							X	AUT, BGR, CAN, CHL, COL, CRI, CYP, DEU, EST, FRA, GRC, ISL, LTU, MEX, PRT
A	Introduce, enforce and monitor provisions, such as quotas, voluntary targets and disclosure requirements supporting gender balance on boards and in management.		X							X	Many countries
A	Encourage and train companies to embed transparency and gender-equality criteria into selection, recruitment retention and promotion processes, including “opt-out” mechanisms for promotion, diversity and inclusion committees, tailored hiring practices, as well as training, mentorship and networking.		X							X	CZE, DEU, EST, JPN, POL
A	Create sectoral action plans for the improvement of gender equality, including linking sector-specific government support (e.g. grants, financing, subsidies) to workplace policies or standards that promote gender equality, especially in industries not traditionally associated with women and where gender gaps are largest.	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	GBR, HRV
A	Ensure recipients of government funding are promoting gender equality and supporting women leaders, especially in areas that are not traditionally associated with women, such as innovation, digitalisation and the green transition (see Chapter 9).		X			X	X			X	ISL
B	Ensure gender balance on candidate lists through incentives, quotas or voluntary targets for all political parties, encourage the use of affirmative actions, such as zipper methods, and/or publicly disclose progress made by political parties in increasing the representation of women – both as candidates and legislators.									X	CHE, COL, CZE, GRC, JPN, LUX, MEX, PRT, ROU
B	Ensure women in politics are afforded equal opportunities to serve on all kinds of ministerial portfolios, including those related to traditionally male‑dominated sectors and ongoing transitions.									X	ISL, SWE
Ensure robust monitoring and evaluation
A, B	Continue to close gender data, research and measurement gaps. Some examples include: women’s political representation at subnational levels (e.g. provincial, state, municipal); the political representation of women with intersecting identity factors (e.g. women of colour, women with disability, women who are migrants); sexual harassment of women politicians and women in the workplace, including women in senior management and leadership positions; differences in career paths (recruitment, advancement, attrition) for women and men.		X	X				X	X	X	Many countries

Note: “Env.” stands for Environment and “Agri.” stands for Agriculture.

Source: OECD Secretariat based on desk research and the 2024 OECD Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality and OECD (2022[124]), European Union (2015[125]; 2016[126]; 2017[71]; 2024[127]; 2019[128]), European Union (2021[129]), Fair Work Ombudsman (2024[130]) and OECD (2023[131]; 2022[132]; 2019[70]).

6.2.2. Country case studies of key policy combinations in EU and OECD countries

According to the OECD Secretariat’s 2024 Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality, many EU and OECD countries have implemented policy combinations to advance gender equality in leadership and representation. Case studies are provided below.

Improving gender representation in management and senior leadership positions in the public and private sector

• Denmark has put in place a combination of policies to foster cultural change, transparency and accountability in leadership positions, aligning its national efforts with the EU’s “Women on Boards” Directive (see Box 6.1). In 2023, for example, legislation was introduced to ensure gender balance across private companies and public institutions, with efforts led by the Ministry for Gender Equality and the Ministry of Industry, Business, and Financial Affairs, and with the involvement of Danish municipalities and regions. This legislation mandates that covered companies and institutions set gender composition targets for upper management and boards. Transparency is enhanced through a publicly accessible website. At the same time, the Ministry for Gender Equality launched the “Gender Equality Summit” and the “Gender Equality Award” initiatives to recognise and encourage best practices. Supporting these efforts, an inspirational catalogue was developed to guide public authorities in improving gender balance in leadership positions. This resource provides practical advice and examples, helping to ensure that the strategy is not only mandatory but also actionable.

• Iceland has implemented legislative action, financial incentives, and monitoring tools to improve gender representation in business leadership. The Equality Scale, developed by the Association of Businesswomen with government support, tracks gender balance in management and executive boards. And, following the Gender Equality Action Programme (2020‑23), the Ministry of Industries and Innovation assesses gender balance on company boards to enforce and refine policies. Financial support also plays a key role. The Women’s Loan Guarantee Fund – Svanni, renewed in 2020 through an agreement between the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industries and Innovation, and the Mayor of Reykjavík, offers loan guarantees to companies where women hold the majority ownership. Additionally, the Icelandic Regional Development Institute provides loans to businesses in rural areas with at least 75% ownership by women.

Reducing gender gaps in political representation

• Romania supports women’s access to leadership positions through affirmative measures, such as quotas; analyses of women’s participation in decision-making positions; and leadership training for women in political parties. Other interventions include providing information sessions on work-life balance in politics for people in leadership positions in politics and on gender in the media to decision-makers in the media.

Box 6.8. Supporting women’s representation in peacebuilding and the foreign service

Peacebuilding and foreign services are additional forms of leadership where several countries are making efforts to increase women’s representation and gender equality considerations. In the Slovak Republic, for example, the National Action Plan for the Implementation of UNSCR 1 325 on Women, Peace and Security for 2021‑25 combines policies that promote women’s representation and leadership with training, capacity building, and gender-based violence (GBV) prevention and response. This is enhanced by a set of actions to improve the quality of the Human Resources Development System in the Foreign Service, promoting a stronger focus on diversity, gender inclusiveness and non-discrimination in career guidance, internal audits, and awareness raising events (e.g. the organisation of regular events focused on “Women in Diplomacy”). Similarly, Slovenia’s National Programme for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men until 2030 identifies foreign policy as one of its pillars and aims to increase the proportion of women in international peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations and missions, as part of efforts to strengthen political dialogue on and direct support to gender equality in bilateral relations, diplomatic efforts, development co‑operation and humanitarian aid activities.

Source: OECD Secretariat based on the 2024 OECD Questionnaire on Policy Combinations for Gender Equality.

Annex 6.A. List of figures in Online Annex

Annex Table 6.A.1. List of Chapter 6 Online Annex Figures

Figure no.	Figure title and subtitle
Figure 6‑A1	Women are most underrepresented in management in construction and manufacturing Share (%) of managers who are women by sector, EU‑27 average, 2023
Figure 6‑A2	Countries vary in public perceptions of women as managers Share (%) who agree or disagree with certain statements regarding women as business leaders, 2019 or latest
Figure 6‑A3	Many do not believe that women have the same chances of being promoted as men Share (%) who disagree that a woman has the same chances of getting promoted as a man, EU countries, 2024
Figure 6‑A4	Women judges face a leaky pipeline Share (%) of professional judges and Supreme Court judges who are women, 2024 or latest
Figure 6‑A5	Women account for considerably less than half of all police officers Share (%) of police officers who are women, 2022 or latest
Figure 6‑A6	Gender balance in the legislature has not yet been achieved in many EU and OECD countries despite significant progress Share (%) of members of national lower chambers and unicameral legislatures (Parliament or Congress) who are women, 1974, 1999 and 2024
Figure 6‑A7	Ministerial portfolios exhibit a notable gender division across functions Share (%) of members of the government or political executive who are women by function, 2024
Figure 6‑A8	Despite progress, one‑fifth of EU and OECD countries still have never had a woman leader Share (%) of countries that have ever had a woman executive (Panel A) and that currently have a woman executive (Panel B), EU and OECD countries, 1947‑2025
Figure 6‑A9	More than 20% of people believe men are better political leaders than women Share (%) who agree or strongly agree that men make better political leaders than women by age group, 2017‑22

Note: Supporting data for all Chapter 6 figures in the main text and the Online Annex are available in the StatLink below.

Statlink

References

[50] Alexander, J. and S. Charman (2023), “Parallel lines? The homogeneous and gendered career patterns of senior leaders in policing in England and Wales”, Police Practice and Research, pp. 1-22, https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2023.2231593.

[40] Algner, M. and T. Lorenz (2022), “You’re Prettier When You Smile: Construction and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Microaggressions Against Women in the Workplace”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.809862.

[49] Angehrn, A., A. Fletcher and R. Carleton (2021), ““Suck It Up, Buttercup”: Understanding and Overcoming Gender Disparities in Policing”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18/14, p. 7627, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147627.

[96] ANU News (2022), Most female candidates contesting unwinnable seats, Australian National University, https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/most-female-candidates-contesting-unwinnable-seats.

[83] Bateson, R. (2020), “Strategic Discrimination”, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 18/4, pp. 1068-1087, https://doi.org/10.1017/s153759272000242x.

[29] Benson, A., L. Danielle and K. Shue (2022), “Potential” and the Gender Promotion Gap, https://danielle-li.github.io/assets/docs/PotentialAndTheGenderPromotionGap.pdf.

[66] Black, J. and A. Griffith (2022), Do MPs represent Canada’s diversity?, Policy Options, https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/january-2022/do-mps-represent-canadas-diversity/.

[2] Bos, A. et al. (2021), “This One’s for the Boys: How Gendered Political Socialization Limits Girls’ Political Ambition and Interest”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 116/2, pp. 484-501, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421001027.

[73] Boschma, J. (2017), Why women don’t run for office, https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/women-rule-politics-graphic/.

[47] Boyd, C., P. Collins and L. Ringhand (2023), Supreme Bias: Gender and Race in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Stanford University Press, https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/books/173.

[78] Brechenmacher, S. (2018), Tackling Women’s Underrepresentation in U.S. Politics: Comparative Perspectives From Europe, https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/02/20/tackling-women-s-underrepresentation-in-u.s.-politics-comparative-perspectives-from-europe-pub-75315.

[54] Bruckmüller, S. et al. (2014), “Beyond the Glass Ceiling: The Glass Cliff and Its Lessons for Organizational Policy”, Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 8/1, pp. 202-232, https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12006.

[3] Campbell, D. and C. Wolbrecht (2006), “See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 68/2, pp. 233-47, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00402.

[34] Casale, S. (2020), Gender Differences in Self‐esteem and Self‐confidence, Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547174.ch208.

[97] Casas-Arce, P. and A. Saiz (2015), “Women and Power: Unpopular, Unwilling, or Held Back?”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 123/3, pp. 641-669, https://doi.org/10.1086/680686.

[33] Chung, H. (2018), “Gender, Flexibility Stigma and the Perceived Negative Consequences of Flexible Working in the UK”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 151/2, pp. 521-545, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2036-7.

[48] Clinkinbeard, S., S. Solomon and R. Rief (2020), “Who Dreams of Badges? Gendered Self-Concept and Policing Career Aspirations”, Feminist Criminology, Vol. 15/5, pp. 567-592, https://www.crimrxiv.com/pub/26xwscnk/release/1.

[84] Corbett, C. et al. (2022), “Pragmatic bias impedes women’s access to political leadership”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 119/6, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112616119.

[93] Council of Europe (2019), Women in politics and in the public discourse: What role can national Parliaments play in combating the ncreasing level of harassment and hate speech towards female politicians and parliamentarians?, http://www.assembly.coe.int/LifeRay/APCE/pdf/ConfPres/2019Strasbourg/20191024-WomenPolitics-EN.pdf.

[67] Council on Foreign Relations (2024), Women’s Power Index, https://www.cfr.org/article/womens-power-index.

[19] Csonka, A. and C. Milhomem (2024), Women on Boards and Beyond: Progress Report, https://www.msci.com/documents/1296102/43943104/MSCI+Women+on+Boards+and+Beyond+2023+Progress+Report.pdf.

[41] Cullen, Z. and R. Perez-Truglia (2023), “The Old Boys’ Club: Schmoozing and the Gender Gap”, American Economic Review, Vol. 113/7, pp. 1703-1740, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210863.

[120] De Acutis, C., A. Weber and E. Wurm (2024), The Effects of Board Gender Quotas: A Meta-Analysis, https://docs.iza.org/dp17333.pdf.

[115] Denis, E. (2022), “Enhancing gender diversity on boards and in senior management of listed companies”, OECD Corporate Governance Working Papers, No. 28, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4f7ca695-en.

[38] Devillard, S. et al. (2021), Gender diversity at work in Canada, https://www.mckinsey.com/ca/overview/gender-diversity-at-work-in-canada.

[95] Di Meco, L. and K. Wilfore (2021), Gendered disinformation is a national security problem, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/gendered-disinformation-is-a-national-security-problem/.

[60] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database - National governments: ministers by seniority and function of government, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/indicator/wmidm_pol_gov__wmid_natgov_minis/metadata.

[45] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database Indicator G10a. The proportion and number of women among the members of the Supreme Courts of the Member States, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/indicator/bpfa_g_offic_g10__wmid_natcrt_supcrt.

[46] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database Indicator G10b. The proportion and number of women among the members of the European Court of Justice and the General Court, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/indicator/bpfa_g_offic_g10__wmid_eucrt.

[20] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database Indicator G11. The proportion and number of women and men among governors and deputy/vice-governors of the Central Banks of the Member States and the President of the European Central Bank, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/browse/bpfa/bpfa_g/bpfa_g_offic/bpfa_g_offic_g11.

[21] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database Indicator G12. The proportion and number of women and men among members of the decision-making bodies of the Central Banks of the Member States and of the European Central Bank, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/browse/bpfa/bpfa_g/bpfa_g_offic/bpfa_g_offic_g12.

[13] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database Indicator G13. The proportion and number of women and men among presidents and vice-presidents of social partner organisations representing workers at national level and at European level, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/browse/bpfa/bpfa_g/bpfa_g_offic/bpfa_g_offic_g13.

[14] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database Indicator G14. The proportion and number of women and men among members of the highest decision-making bodies of social partner organisations representing workers at national level and at European level, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/browse/bpfa/bpfa_g/bpfa_g_offic/bpfa_g_offic_g14.

[15] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database Indicator G15. The proportion and number of women and men among presidents and vice-presidents of social partner organisations representing employers at national level and at European level, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/browse/bpfa/bpfa_g/bpfa_g_offic/bpfa_g_offic_g15.

[16] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database Indicator G16. The proportion and number of women and men among members of the highest decision-making bodies of social partner organisations representing employers at national level and at European level, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/browse/bpfa/bpfa_g/bpfa_g_offic/bpfa_g_offic_g16.

[10] EIGE (2024), Gender Statistics Database Indicator J1d. The proportion of women and men in decision-making posts in public broadcaster organisations [from 2014], https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/indicator/bpfa_j_offic_j1__wmid_media_pbrc_exec/datatable.

[17] EIGE (2024), Women and Men in Decision-Making: Methodological report, European Institute for Gender Equality, https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/publications/women-and-men-decision-making-methodological-report?language_content_entity=en.

[98] Esteve-Volart, B. and M. Bagues (2012), “Are women pawns in the political game? Evidence from elections to the Spanish Senate”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 96/3-4, pp. 387-399, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.12.004.

[8] Eurobarometer (2024), Gender stereotypes, https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2974.

[37] European Parliament (2022), Directive (EU) 2022/2381 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 on improving the gender balance among directors of listed companies and related measures, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022L2381.

[101] European Parliament (1997), Differential Impact of Electoral Systems on Female Political Representation, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/femm/w10/2_en.htm.

[127] European Union (2024), 2024 report on gender equality in the EU, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/965ed6c9-3983-4299-8581-046bf0735702_en?filename=2024%20Report%20on%20Gender%20Equality%20in%20the%20EU_coming%20soon.pdf.

[123] European Union (2022), Directive (EU) 2022/2381 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 on improving the gender balance among directors of listed companies and related measures, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022L2381.

[129] European Union (2021), 2021 report on gender equality in the EU, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/11d9cab1-fa52-11eb-b520-01aa75ed71a1.

[128] European Union (2019), 2019 report on equality between women and men in the EU, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f3dd1274-7788-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1/.

[71] European Union (2017), Special Eurobarometer 465 - Gender Equality 2017, https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2154_87_4_465_eng?locale=en.

[126] European Union (2016), Report on equality between women and men 2015, https://op.europa.eu/publication-detail/-/publication/2ca44101-173b-11e6-ba9a-01aa75ed71a1.

[125] European Union (2015), Report on equality between women and men 2014, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/cc106eb5-4510-40b7-b497-4b4f7b41f22b.

[11] Eurostat (2024), Employment by sex, age, occupation and economic activity (from 2008 onwards, NACE Rev. 2) (1 000), https://doi.org/10.2908/LFSA_EISN2.

[44] Eurostat (2024), Personnel in the criminal justice system by sex, https://doi.org/10.2908/CRIM_JUST_JOB.

[35] Exley, C. and J. Kessler (2022), “The Gender Gap in Self-Promotion”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 137/3, pp. 1345-1381, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac003.

[74] Eyméoud, J. and P. Vertier (2020), Gender discrimination and local elections, Institut des Politiques Publiques, https://www.ipp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/n51-notesIPP-march2020.pdf.

[130] Fair Work Ombudsman (2024), Right to disconnect, https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/hours-of-work-breaks-and-rosters/right-to-disconnect.

[39] Field, E. et al. (2023), Women in the Workplace 2023, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace.

[6] Fitzsimmons, T., V. Callan and N. Paulsen (2014), “Gender disparity in the C-suite: Do male and female CEOs differ in how they reached the top?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25/2, pp. 245-266, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.005.

[87] Fiva, J. and M. King (2023), Child Penalties in Politics, https://www.jon.fiva.no/docs/FivaKing.pdf.

[91] Fraile, M. and R. Gomez (2017), “Bridging the enduring gender gap in political interest in Europe: The relevance of promoting gender equality”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 56/3, pp. 601-618, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12200.

[109] Fraile, M. and I. Sánchez‐Vítores (2019), “Tracing the Gender Gap in Political Interest Over the Life Span: A Panel Analysis”, Political Psychology, Vol. 41/1, pp. 89-106, https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12600.

[24] Fundamental Rights Agency (2020), Fundamental Rights Survey, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-and-maps/2021/frs.

[51] Galsanjigmed, E. and T. Sekiguchi (2023), “Challenges Women Experience in Leadership Careers: An Integrative Review”, Merits, Vol. 3/2, pp. 366-389, https://doi.org/10.3390/merits3020021.

[57] Glass, C. and A. Cook (2016), “Leading at the top: Understanding women’s challenges above the glass ceiling”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27/1, pp. 51-63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.003.

[94] Guerin, C. and E. Maharasingam-Shah (2020), Public Figures, Public Rage: Candidate Abuse on Social Media, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Public-Figures-Public-Rage-4.pdf.

[28] Hamilton, O. and G. Lordan (2023), “Ability or luck: A systematic review of interpersonal attributions of success”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1035012.

[121] Harnay, S. et al. (2024), Gender Equality Within Boards: Comparing Quota and Soft Law, https://afed.ovh/RePEc/afd/wpaper/AFED-WP-24-08.pdf.

[118] Hughes, M., P. Paxton and M. Krook (2017), “Gender Quotas for Legislatures and Corporate Boards”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 43/1, pp. 331-352, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053324.

[42] Ibarra, H. (2019), A Lack of Sponsorship Is Keeping Women from Advancing into Leadership, Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2019/08/a-lack-of-sponsorship-is-keeping-women-from-advancing-into-leadership.

[65] Ie, K. (2023), Minority representation in the House won’t improve without better data, https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2023/minority-representation-house-of-commons/.

[58] IPU (2024), Historical data on women in national parliaments, https://data.ipu.org/historical-women/.

[59] IPU (2023), Women in Politics: 2023, https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/infographics/2023-03/women-in-politics-2023.

[104] Jenkins, S. (2007), “A Woman’s Work Is Never Done? Fund-Raising Perception and Effort among Female State Legislative Candidates”, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 60/2, pp. 230-239, https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907301682.

[86] Joshi, D. and R. Goehrung (2020), Female parliamentarians still face a motherhood penalty, but the evidence globally suggests it can be ended, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/03/09/female-parliamentarians-still-face-a-motherhood-penalty-but-the-evidence-globally-suggests-it-can-be-ended/.

[77] Kage, R., F. Rosenbluth and S. Tanaka (2018), “What Explains Low Female Political Representation? Evidence from Survey Experiments in Japan”, Politics & Gender, Vol. 15/02, pp. 285-309, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x18000223.

[112] Kanthak, K. and J. Woon (2014), “Women Don’t Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59/3, pp. 595-612, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12158.

[122] Kerevel, Y. (2019), “Empowering Women? Gender Quotas and Women’s Political Careers”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 81/4, pp. 1167-1180, https://doi.org/10.1086/704434.

[61] Kroeber, C. and J. Hüffelmann (2021), “It’s a Long Way to the Top: Women’s Ministerial Career Paths”, Politics & Gender, Vol. 18/3, pp. 741-767, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x21000118.

[56] Kulich, C. et al. (2015), “Signaling change during a crisis: Refining conditions for the glass cliff”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 96-103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.002.

[5] Kung, K. (2021), “Preschool Gender-Typed Play Behavior Predicts Adolescent Gender-Typed Occupational Interests: A 10-Year Longitudinal Study”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 50/3, pp. 843-851, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01976-z.

[108] Lawless, J. and R. Fox (2022), The Gender Gap in Political Ambition: Everything You Need to Know in 10 Charts, https://thelawmakers.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Gender-Gap-in-Political-Ambitions_Report_Final-Jen-Lawless-2022-3-1.pdf.

[4] Lawless, J. and R. Fox (2013), Girls Just Wanna Not Run: The Gender Gap in Young Americans’ Political Ambition.

[111] Lawless, J. and R. Fox (2012), Men Rule: The Continued Underrepresentation of Women in U.S. Politics.

[68] Lazarus, J., A. Steigerwalt and M. Clark (2022), “Time Spent in the House: Gender and the Political Careers of U.S. House Members”, Politics & Gender, Vol. 19/1, pp. 97-132, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x21000428.

[75] Le Barbanchon, T. and J. Sauvagnat (2021), “Electoral Competition, Voter Bias, and Women in Politics”, Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 20/1, pp. 352-394, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvab028.

[82] Lean In (2020), How outdated notions about gender and leadership are shaping the 2020 presidential race, https://media.sgff.io/sgff_r1eHetbDYb/2019-09-12/1568250861923/Lean-In-Gender-and-2020_Election_Report_F.pdf.

[105] Lühiste, M. and S. Banducci (2016), “Invisible Women? Comparing Candidates’ News Coverage in Europe”, Politics & Gender, Vol. 12/02, pp. 223-253, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x16000106.

[103] Lyytikkä, H. (2021), Lack of financial regulation and support hinders women’s political participation, https://demofinland.org/en/lack-of-financial-regulation-and-support-hinders-womens-political-participation/.

[18] Matanda, T., C. Wang and O. Emelianova (2023), Women on Board: 2022 Progress Report, MSCI, https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/36771346/Women_on_Boards_Progress_Report_2022.pdf.

[89] Menasce Horowitz, J. and I. Goddard (2023), Women and political leadership ahead of the 2024 election: Views of obstacles for women seeking high political office, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/09/27/views-of-obstacles-for-women-seeking-high-political-office/.

[72] Miller, C. (2016), The Problem for Women is Not Winning. It’s Deciding to Run, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/upshot/the-problem-for-women-is-not-winning-its-deciding-to-run.html.

[52] Morgenroth, T. et al. (2020), “The who, when, and why of the glass cliff phenomenon: A meta-analysis of appointments to precarious leadership positions”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 146/9, pp. 797-829, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000234.

[110] Niederle, M. and L. Vesterlund (2007), “Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 122/3, pp. 1067-1101, https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067.

[1] OECD (2023), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.

[12] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2023 Issue 1, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce188438-en.

[43] OECD (2023), OECD Government at a Glance 2023 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/oecd-government-at-a-glance-database.html.

[131] OECD (2023), Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3ddef555-en.

[132] OECD (2022), Future Mentors Programme, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/future-mentors/.

[124] OECD (2022), Report on the Implementation of the OECD Gender Recommendations, https://www.oecd.org/mcm/Implementation-OECD-Gender-Recommendations.pdf.

[36] OECD (2020), Policies and Practices to Promote Women in Leadership Roles in the Private Sector, https://www.oecd.org/corporate/OECD-G20-EMPOWER-Women-Leadership.pdf.

[70] OECD (2019), Fast Forward to Gender Equality: Mainstreaming, Implementation and Leadership, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9faa5-en.

[22] OECD (2017), The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-en.

[99] O’Neil, S. (2018), Mexico’s female legislators are no silver bullet for gender equality, Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/blog/mexicos-female-legislators-are-no-silver-bullet-gender-inequality.

[88] Ouellet, V. and N. Shiab (2019), Set up to fail: Why women still don’t win elections as often as men in Canada, CBC / Radio-Canada, https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2019/elections-federales/femmes-hommes-probabilites-vote-egalite-chateaux-forts/index-en.html.

[81] Pas, D., L. Aaldering and E. Steenvoorden (2022), “Gender bias in political candidate evaluation among voters: The role of party support and political gender attitudes”, Frontiers in Political Science, Vol. 4, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.921252.

[107] Piscopo, J. and M. Kenny (2020), “Rethinking the ambition gap: gender and candidate emergence in comparative perspective”, European Journal of Politics and Gender, Vol. 3/1, pp. 3-10, https://doi.org/10.1332/251510819x15755447629661.

[64] Poole, Y. (2022), What to make of the diversity in Australia’s 47th parliament, The Power to Persuade, https://www.powertopersuade.org.au/blog/what-to-make-of-the-diversity-in-australias-47th-parliament/16/7/2022.

[80] Poutvaara, P. and A. Graefe (2024), Do Americans Favor Female or Male Politicians? Evidence from Experimental Elections, https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp11414.pdf.

[113] Preece, J. and O. Stoddard (2015), Why women don’t run: Experimental evidence on gender differences in political competition aversion, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6707&context=facpub.

[100] Real, C. (2020), Women’s underrepresentation in parliament: Issues and challenges of representative democracy, Gender in Geopolitics Institute, https://igg-geo.org/?p=2889&lang=en#_ftn26.

[53] Reinwald, M., J. Zaia and F. Kunze (2022), “Shine Bright Like a Diamond: When Signaling Creates Glass Cliffs for Female Executives”, Journal of Management, Vol. 49/3, pp. 1005-1036, https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211067518.

[32] Reitman, F. and J. Schneer (2005), “The Long-Term Negative Impacts of Managerial Career Interruptions”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30/3, pp. 243-262, https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104269110.

[102] Ridley-Castle, T. (2023), Proportional representation helped women get elected in 2022, Electoral Reform Society.

[116] Rigolini, A. and M. Huse (2019), “Women and Multiple Board Memberships: Social Capital and Institutional Pressure”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 169/3, pp. 443-459, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04313-6.

[85] Rosenbluth, F., J. Kalla and D. Teele (2015), The Female Political Career, https://www.womenpoliticalleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Final_13012015_The-Female-Political-Career.pdf.

[55] Ryan, M. et al. (2016), “Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27/3, pp. 446-455, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.008.

[76] Saltzer, S. and M. McGrath (2022), “Voter Bias and the Partisan Gender-Gap in Office”, Political Behavior, Vol. 46/1, pp. 473-500, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09832-z.

[92] Sánchez-Vítores, I. (2018), “Different Governments, Different Interests: The Gender Gap in Political Interest”, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, Vol. 26/3, pp. 348-369, https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxy038.

[7] Santoniccolo, F. et al. (2023), “Gender and Media Representations: A Review of the Literature on Gender Stereotypes, Objectification and Sexualization”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 20/10, p. 5770, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105770.

[79] Schwarz, S. and A. Coppock (2022), “What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of Sixty-Seven Factorial Survey Experiments”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 84/2, pp. 655-668, https://doi.org/10.1086/716290.

[117] Seierstad, C. and M. Huse (2017), “Gender Quotas on Corporate Boards in Norway: Ten Years Later and Lessons Learned”, in Gender Diversity in the Boardroom, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56142-4_2.

[9] Smith, S., K. Pieper and S. Wheeler (2023), Inequality in 1,600 Popular Films: Examining Portrayals of Gender, Race/Ethnicity, LGBTQ+ & Disability from 2007 to 2022, USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, https://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2023/08/17/1600inequality_1.pdf.

[119] Sojo, V. et al. (2016), “Reporting requirements, targets, and quotas for women in leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27/3, pp. 519-536, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.003.

[23] Son Hing, L. et al. (2023), “Gender inequities in the workplace: A holistic review of organizational processes and practices”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 33/3, p. 100968, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100968.

[90] Stalsburg, B. (2010), “Voting For Mom: The Political Consequences of Being a Parent for Male and Female Candidates”, Politics & Gender, Vol. 6/03, pp. 373-404, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x10000309.

[30] Trzebiatowski, T., C. McCluney and M. Hernandez (2023), “Managing the Double Bind: Women Directors’ Participation Tactics in the Gendered Boardroom”, Organization Science, Vol. 34/2, pp. 801-827, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1599.

[27] Turban, S., L. Freeman and B. Waber (2017), A Study Used Sensors to Show That Men and Women Are Treated Differently at Work, Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-men-and-women-are-treated-differently-at-work?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=hbr&utm_source=facebook&tpcc=orgsocial_edit.

[69] UK Parliament (2022), Action needed to avoid losing a generation of women in politics, https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/161363/action-needed-to-avoid-losing-a-generation-of-women-in-politics/.

[62] UN Women (2024), Women Political Leaders 2024, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/Poster-Women-political-leaders-2024-en.pdf.

[106] Van der Pas, D. and L. Aaldering (2020), “Gender Differences in Political Media Coverage: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 70/1, pp. 114-143, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz046.

[26] Vial, A. and J. Napier (2018), “Unnecessary Frills: Communality as a Nice (But Expendable) Trait in Leaders”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01866.

[63] Wax, E. (2023), EU Parliament seeks to improve gender balance on committees, Politico, https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-parliament-seeks-to-make-committees-more-gender-balanced/.

[114] Wood, R. (2024), “The Effects of Electoral Violence on Women’s Legislative Representation”, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 77/3, pp. 915-930, https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241252373.

[25] WVS (2023), World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017-2022), https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp.

[31] Zheng, W., R. Kark and A. Meister (2018), How Women Manage the Gendered Norms of Leadership, Harvard Business Review.