The Ambition Gap Myth (And Why Addressing Succession Design Flaws is the Real Key to Strengthening CEO Pipelines)

As the CEO role grows harder than ever, succession pipelines are falling short. Simultaneously, the share of incoming women CEOs continues to fall globally. In response, a damaging misconception has begun gaining traction: that the decreasing rate of women CEO appointments is due to an “Ambition Gap” between men and women leaders.

The data tells a different story.

While women leaders are less likely than their male counterparts to express initial interest in the CEO role, insights from our RRA Artemis cohorts, Global Leadership Monitor, and CEO succession and development work reveal that this hesitation stems from:

1. Women not always associating the CEO role with what motivates them most.
2. Women leaders being clear-eyed about the additional structural barriers they face on their journeys to the top.

The problems with current CEO pipelines don’t stem from an ambition gap. They’re caused by structural design flaws in organizations’ succession plans. Women’s lower levels of interest are a symptom of those designs, not a reflection of less ambition or capability.

In today’s uncertain environment, the world needs more great CEOs. To help boards broaden and improve their CEO succession pipelines, this piece explores:

• The problems with historic succession planning approaches, 
• Why women leaders represent a strategic lever that boards are significantly underutilizing, 
• The structural design flaws preventing high potential leaders from reaching the top, and
• What truly motivates women to lead (and those motivators’ alignment to future-fit CEO leadership).

Finally, we’ll lay out what boards can do to dismantle these barriers, thereby creating sturdier career ladders for all leaders and meaningfully expanding their CEO pipelines.

The trouble with historic succession planning approaches

Today, fewer than half of board directors believe their CEO succession plans will succeed. Meanwhile, CEO tenures are hitting record lows amid increasing demands. Additionally, organizations are on the brink of a looming succession crisis in the levels below, with 71% of next generation leaders expressing interest in leaving their employers.

Underpinning this is the reality that women’s CEO representation has stagnated around 10% for decades, meaning prior succession approaches have done little to address the issue. This shows no sign of immediate improvement; in 2025, the share of incoming women CEOs declined to about 9% globally, continuing a steady fall from a peak of 13% in 2022.

Thus, half the population is underutilized in leadership pipelines. While sobering, this represents a clear opportunity for organizations to address their leadership pipeline risks.

Overall interest in the CEO role has dropped dramatically

The gap between men’s and women’s interest in the CEO role is closing. Unfortunately, the scales are sliding in the wrong direction, as overall interest in the CEO role has plummeted over the past three years.

In H2 2022, fewer than one-third of women leaders (C-suite and next generation) globally expressed interest in the CEO role. Three years later, this remained the same at 29% (Figure 1). Contrary to the “Ambition Gap” narrative, women’s interest level hasn’t changed.

By contrast, nearly half of men reported interest in the top job in 2022, a staggering 20 percentage points higher than women’s interest. But by the end of 2025, that gap had shrunk to a mere 9 percentage points, with only 38% of men expressing CEO aspirations.

Figure 1: Proportion of leaders with CEO aspirations, by gender (2022 vs 2025)

_{Source: RRA H2 2025 Global Leadership Monitor, n = 664 C-suite and next gen leaders; RRA H2 2022 Global Leadership Monitor, n = 240 C-suite and next gen leaders.}

There’s a straightforward reason for this: The job is getting harder. CEOs today are expected to steer AI transformation agendas, manage rising stakeholder expectations and anticipate geopolitical disruption, all while driving growth and protecting margins. Our H2 2025 Global Leadership Monitor reflects the growing complexity of the role, revealing an overall decline in how prepared CEOs feel to address the external issues most affecting their businesses. It’s no wonder the job is less appealing—and that boards need to take action.

Why aspiration is a misleading metric

When we asked CEOs whether the role was always a career goal of theirs, 44% of women CEOs reported it was, while 41% said it was not (Figure 2). Men were more likely to say yes (with 58% agreeing) and less likely to say no (24% disagreeing).

However, initial interest doesn’t equate to performance. Our data shows that women CEOs who weren’t initially interested in the role report more positive overall views on their organization’s performance and higher levels of engagement.

What does this tell us? That initial uncertainty about pursuing the CEO role has no bearing on one’s actual performance.

Figure 2: CEO’s career aspirations, by gender

_{Source: Russell Reynolds Associates’ H2 2025 Global Leadership Monitor, n = 275 CEOs}

When all leaders see a clear path forward, the “Ambition Gap” disappears

As next generation leaders (one level below the C-suite), men and women express equal levels of interest in the next level, with 84% and 83% respectively agreeing that they want to take on more responsibility. They’re also similarly likely to agree that their career aspirations will be met at their current organization (30% and 34%) (Figure 3a).

However, this shifts at the C-level. Here, women are 10 percentage points less likely than men to express interest in more responsibility. Importantly, this is also when women become less likely than men to believe their career aspirations will be met at their current employer, compared to being slightly more optimistic than men at the level prior (Figure 3b).

Figures 3a & 3b: Desire to take on responsibility vs. feasibility at current organization

_{Source: RRA H2 2025 Global Leadership Monitor, n = 674 C-suite and next gen leaders}

When women don’t see evidence of their career aspirations being met at their organizations, they lose interest in growing within it (which we’ll explore more in the next section). Conversely, when women receive the same opportunities as men—via mechanisms like sponsorship, clear advancement paths, and manager advocacy—they remain interested in advancement.

So if “ambition” correlates with structural support, it likely isn’t the root issue. It’s the outcome. Women aren’t opting out of ambition; they’re stepping away from succession systems that aren’t designed for them.

This clear-eyed recognition of structural barriers causes many capable women leaders to opt out of pursuing CEO roles

While women are just as capable as leaders, they’re less likely to pursue the CEO role.

When we asked women leaders what specifically makes them lose interest in becoming CEO, they cited concerns around: increased scrutiny, harsher media portrayals, work–life sustainability, and political targeting. Unfortunately, these perceptions are well-founded. Sitting women CEOs report less board support, less autonomy to build their teams, more isolation, and few mentorship opportunities once in the role (Figure 4).

Figure 4: The road to CEO is not easy– especially for women

_{Source: RRA H2 2025 Global Leadership Monitor, n = 275 CEOs}

Prior RRA research also bears this out. Our examination of over 20,000 news articles, covering almost 750 CEOs, clearly found that women CEOs face high levels of scrutiny and unconscious bias in the global media. Our recent research with the Conference Board found that women CEOs are twice as likely to receive activist attention. And we’ve uncovered that women CEOs are more likely to be fired than their male counterparts, regardless of firm performance.

These structural barriers have been well-documented for years. And as fewer and fewer organizations cite women’s career advancement as a priority, it’s no surprise that the CEO role doesn’t initially appeal to most women.

Women aren’t always associating the CEO role with what motivates them most towards leadership. Yet those very drivers make them well-suited to lead today

So, what does motivate women to take on the CEO role? When asked via our Monitor, women leaders highlighted: shaping a new culture, driving impact, aligning organizational purpose with strategic outcomes, empowering one’s team, transforming the organization, and making a meaningful difference in their space.

Through our RRA Artemis program, we’ve also observed the leadership competencies that tend to come effortlessly to women leaders:

1. Connecting purpose to organization impact. Navigating the ever-expanding stakeholder ecosystem requires multi-systems thinking to connect dots across competing priorities while remaining true to the organization’s strategy.
2. Creating followership and team development. Women leaders are rated higher on coaching and developing teams by their direct reports. In a world where no one has all the answers, getting the most from a group, creating value through others, and elevating talent is increasingly critical.  
3. Transformative leadership and stakeholder connection. Despite outdated narratives, women leaders feel just as prepared to lead through technological change, including AI implementation and adoption. They’re also comfortable acknowledging that they don’t have all the answers, which increases trust and invites better ideas.

These motivators correlate highly with the factors that indicate the ability to lead through perpetual uncertainty. RRA’s Leadership Portrait assessment and development model highlights growth and potential realization factors—including systems thinking, curiosity, drive, resilience, social intelligence, self-awareness, clear values, and desire to drive wider impact—as key indicators of ability to lead effectively through massive and continual change.

The irony: despite being key to leading through uncertainty, these strengths are often penalized (rather than rewarded) when women leaders display them. The good news? With just a few targeted actions, boards can easily fix these structural design flaws.

Authors

Margot McShane co-leads Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board & CEO Advisory practice globally, 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.
Leah Christianson is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Center for Leadership Insight. She is based in San Francisco.
Natasha Treschow is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board & CEO Advisory practice. She is based in London.