Why Women CEOs Leave Sooner – and How Boards Can Help All CEOs Thrive

Women CEOs’ tenures are, on average, three years shorter than men’s. Why?

Russell Reynolds Associates has reported extensively on the common obstacles many women leaders face on their journeys to the top. Yet these obstacles don’t disappear once women make it there. This is perhaps best illustrated by data from RRA’s CEO Turnover Index, which found that, since 2018, women CEOs hold the role for an average of 5.2 years, while their male counterparts served for an average of 7.9 years—equating to men spending more than 50% longer in seat.

While there are many different reasons and contributing factors leading to a CEO’s departure, research shows that four overarching themes rise to the surface.

As the context in which CEOs operate grows ever more complex and unpredictable, the top job is only getting harder. The consequence is that organizations need more qualified CEO candidates with broader success profiles and better strategies for supporting the leaders who make it to the top job.

With women holding only 10% of the CEO roles in the S&P and FTSE 100s – and spending significantly less time in the top job once they do get there – it’s clear that organizations are not only missing out on a large segment of potential CEO candidates, they may also be failing to create the conditions for success for every CEO.

What’s causing shorter tenures among women CEOs?

Women CEOs are more likely to be fired than their male counterparts, regardless of firm performance

First and foremost, women have shorter tenures as CEOs because more of them are being dismissed after only a short time in seat.

Women CEOs are 33% more likely to be exited than their male counterparts. Our CEO Turnover Index found that, since 2018, an average of 32% of women CEOs were fired within three years, versus 24% of men globally (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Reasons for CEO departure by gender (all reasons)

^{Source: RRA CEO Turnover Index, n= 1317 CEO departures between 2018-2024 across 12 global indices (ASX 200, CAC 40, DAX, EURONEXT 100, FTSE 100, FTSE 250, HANG SENG, Nifty 50, Nikkei 225, S&P 500, S&P/TSX Composite, STI, SMI) Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding.}

^{*Refers to a new internal role (e.g., stepping into a board or advisor role, a new CEO role under the same parent company, a deputy CEO role, etc.)}

This isn’t because women CEOs are doing a worse job. In fact, studies indicates that women CEOs are 45% more likely to get fired—regardless of performance—when compared to male CEOs. While men in the CEO role are less likely to be dismissed when firm performance is high (compared to when it’s low), women CEOs experience similar dismissal levels regardless of their organization’s financial performance—suggesting that their dismissals aren’t always tied to this metric.¹

Women CEOs leave the role for external opportunities, personal reasons, or as part of a long-term succession plan more often than men

Outside of removal by their board, there are a number of different reasons CEOs leave their posts; again, these differ markedly for women vs men.

More men than women retire from the CEO role (31% vs 13%) (Figures 1 and 2). This difference may be explained by the fact that men tend to hold the role longer, and are more likely to be a CEO multiple times. Women are more likely to pursue opportunities beyond the organization than men (10% vs 4%), while men are more likely take on a different internal role after being CEO (6% vs 14%).

Women CEOs are more than twice as likely (13% vs 6%) to cite personal reasons for departure (e.g., family obligations, health) than their male counterparts.

Interestingly, women CEOs are more likely to be replaced by a succession plan than men (16% vs 11%). In fact, eight of the ten women CEOs who left their organizations due to a planned succession process had also been internally promoted into the CEO role. This suggests that organizations with long-term CEO succession plans may have more well-rounded candidate slates, improving overall CEO optionality.

Figure 2: Reasons for CEO departure by gender (CEO’s choice)

^{Source: RRA CEO Turnover Index, n= 1317 CEO departures between 2018-2024 across 12 global indices (ASX 200, CAC 40, DAX, EURONEXT 100, FTSE 100, FTSE 250, HANG SENG, Nifty 50, Nikkei 225, S&P 500, S&P/TSX Composite, STI, SMI). Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding. | *Refers to a new internal role (e.g., stepping into a board or advisor role, a new CEO role under the same parent company, a deputy CEO role, etc.)}

Heightened media scrutiny amplifies existing biases, likely pre-disposing boards and hiring committees to be more critical of women leaders

RRA has long observed how different narratives shape opportunities for women leaders. Now, we have the data to prove it. Our analysis of over 20,000 news articles reveals systematic patterns in how women CEOs are portrayed compared to men. These include:

The Positivity Gap

Our research indicates a heightened media focus on both the exits and performance of women CEOs. Women CEO departures are almost twice as likely to be covered than those of their male counterparts—and negative sentiment around CEO departures is significantly higher for women compared to men.

 

I certainly experience [the positivity gap] in my own media coverage as CEO. Stories always led with ‘woman’ versus ‘performance,’ even though I had an excellent track record at the company. I had to continually push to have the media cover me in a way that focused on the actual results of the portfolio.”

Lisa Wardell, Former CEO & Chair of Adtalem
RRA CEO Talks Webinar

 

The Innovation/Inspiration Dichotomy

The media tend to use very different adjectives to describe women CEOs versus their male equivalents. Based on the proportion of mentions across media, men were twice as likely to be described as ‘innovators,’ whereas women were 72% more likely to be described as ‘inspirational.’

 

For me, it is a concern that men are seen as more innovative, because that translates to change, which translates to transformation and disruption, which are all very much part of the CEO job specification. Is this another factor holding women back? I think so.” 

Dean Stamoulis
Russell Reynolds Associates

 

The Ambition/Confidence Double Bind

We found women CEOs were 73% more likely to have articles mention their ambition versus their male equivalents. In our research, women CEOs are both twice as likely to be described as being too ambitious, and twice as likely to be described as lacking ambition.

 

The research highlights how women are viewed for leadership roles; they experience an oscillating bar where they are either too much or not enough. These perspectives are laced with negative connotations of what a CEO should look like and how one should behave. We are at a point where history can easily repeat itself, and we need to bring about real systemic change in order to break the 10% barrier for women holding CEO positions."

Hetty Pye
Russell Reynolds Associates

 

Biased portrayals lead to flawed perceptions. Both RRA and external CEO succession research consistently finds that affinity bias,²  confirmation bias,³  halo bias,⁴  the fallacy of comparison,⁵  and fundamental attribution errors⁶  all contribute to distorted leadership evaluations. And these traps don’t go away once a CEO is in seat. While we would all like to believe that we’re above media’s influence, the truth is that repeated, subjective representations of any group of people can lead even the most self-aware of organizations to a misguided conclusion.

The Glass Cliff: Women CEOs are more likely to inherit a crisis

The “Glass Cliff” phenomenon sees women and underrepresented minorities appointed as leaders when an organization is going through a crisis — meaning their appointments are precarious by definition, given the inherent high risk for failure.

This understanding stems from 2005 research from the University of Exeter, which found that women were more likely to be appointed as board members after a company’s share price had performed badly. As Professor Michelle Ryan, one of the original research authors put it, “If women are more likely to take on leadership roles in times of crisis, it follows that their time in office is likely to be stressful, heavily scrutinized, and shorter in tenure.”

Twenty years later, our research still supports this insight, meaning the call to action is long overdue.

What can boards do to address the CEO tenure gap?

The board’s job isn’t over once a CEO has been successfully appointed. Organizations also need to ensure that overlooked roadblocks aren’t hindering a CEO’s ability to drive impact. Consider the following:

In today’s volatile world, recognize that what makes a great CEO today is different and evolving

How can organizations identify leaders who both navigate change and keep their organizations steady? It comes down to executive potential. When boards focus on forward-looking competencies—like self-knowledge, systems thinking, resilience, and driving wider impact—they can both identify candidates who may have been otherwise overlooked, and ensure their current CEO is being judged in a fair and future-focused manner.

 

The CEO archetypes of the past will not suffice in our uncertain present and future. Boards have to proactively identify new success profiles and advocate for unexpected candidates with conviction.”

Margot McShane
Russell Reynolds Associates

 

There’s no “one-size-fits-all” CEO

Boards spend a lot of time selecting the next CEO, but they often under-invest on helping the new CEO transition into the role, which is even more critical to CEO success, given the challenging and rapidly evolving environment for most companies. Boards need to ensure they are creating the optimal conditions for success for the next CEO, especially when a new CEOs doesn’t fit the stereotypical mold.

 

We’ve consistently seen that the board members who recognize the power of new CEO profiles—and commit to supporting this new type of leader throughout their transition into the role—often make for better stewards through times of extreme volatility.”

Dana Krueger
Russell Reynolds Associates

 

Proactively check biases when publicly discussing, internally evaluating, and before dismissing a CEO of any gender

Bias is a part of life. To counteract it, boards must ensure they are holding every CEO to the same performance standards and exhibiting consistent levels of public support for their organization’s leadership, regardless of gender. If someone begins to question CEO performance, the board should refer to a consistent set of underperformance indicators.

 

The best board leaders will go beyond recognizing their own biases and say: ‘Team, we should all be aware that it's super likely we all have biases.’ Let’s all make them explicit, not implicit, and go out of our way to not be overly influenced by them.”

Jørgen Vig Knudstorp
Executive Chairman and & Former CEO of The LEGO Group, RRA CEO Talks Webinar

 

Understanding organizational wiring is key to supporting your CEO

While boards can’t expressly dictate organizational practices, directors should work to build an accurate understanding of the organization’s culture to help guide the CEO—especially while they’re new in seat. Our research finds that boards whose leaders actively seek a range of perspectives are 1.8 times more likely to feel they have the data needed to understand the company’s culture. Ultimately, it’s on the board to ensure that the conditions for success are in place.

 

It’s not about trying to fix the women—it's about fixing the culture. It’s cultures and status quo thinking that hold everyone—women and men—back. Ensuring workplace and board cultures are well-suited to embrace leadership geared for success in today’s world is critical for everyone’s success.”

Shannon Knott
Russell Reynolds Associates

 

Authors

• Margot McShane co-leads Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board & CEO Advisory practice, and is the co-founder of RRA Artemis. She is based in San Francisco.
• Hetty Pye is a senior member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board & CEO Advisory practice, and is the co-founder of RRA Artemis. She is based in London.
• Dana Krueger is a senior member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board & CEO Advisory & leads the Healthcare practice in EMEA. She is based in Amsterdam and New York.
• Leah Christianson is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Center for Leadership Insight. She is based in San Francisco.