Guido Schilling: «There’s a bottleneck in the system»

m&k The proportion of women in executive management has stagnated at 22 %—what exactly is causing this momentum to level off after years of growth?

Guido Schilling I already noticed last year that growth was slowing down. We analyze the gender diversity pipeline among the 250 leading Swiss employers, which measures the trend in the proportion of women across all management levels. Our findings show that many companies place a strong emphasis on meeting government requirements at the top, but at the same time are making significantly less progress in developing female talent at the levels below. I do not interpret this trend as a step backward, but rather as an indication that the talent pool has largely been exhausted. In recent years, the proportion of women on executive boards has risen from around 4 % to over 20 %—driven by regulation, social pressure, and increased attention from boards of directors. This progress is substantial, but it is now increasingly encountering structural limits. A closer look reveals several causes. For one thing, the pool of women with extensive operational experience remains limited. For another, the demands placed on executive leadership roles have risen significantly in recent years. Geopolitical uncertainties, technological transformations, and increasing regulatory complexity now require a higher degree of experience and maturity. Consequently, new executive board members are, on average, older than in the past, which slows down the overall pace of renewal. Added to this is a structural imbalance in the talent pipeline. While the proportion of women in middle management has grown, systematic development across all leadership levels has often remained insufficient. The strong focus on achieving a target figure at the top has, in some cases, come at the expense of sustainable talent development. To put it bluntly: Only what is measured is managed consistently. The clear focus on greater diversity in executive boards has not always been accompanied by corresponding development programs that specifically cultivate the next generation of leaders across all levels. Many companies are currently in the process of establishing such measures, but their impact will naturally not be evident in the short term.

You say that companies have focused heavily on meeting targets—have many firms simply «checked off» gender diversity rather than embedding it in a sustainable way?

Over the past 20 years, there have been enormous changes in the composition of executive boards. When I published the data for the first Schilling Report in 2006, one of the roughly 20 journalists in attendance asked me why the proportion of women on executive boards was only 4 %. It took nearly an entire generation for Switzerland to recognize the added value of greater diversity in leadership teams. Many CEOs and board chairs first had to learn from their own experience that diverse teams lead to more robust decisions and a more balanced assessment of risk, thereby giving companies access to a significantly larger pool of well-educated women. At the same time, regulatory pressure led many companies to focus heavily on meeting formal targets. It was not uncommon for companies to recruit women externally on a short-term basis rather than developing talent within the company over the long term. Once the target figures were met, there was occasionally a sense that the mission had been accomplished—an attitude that falls short of the mark. Diversity must start early and be understood as a developmental process. I was impressed by a mechanical engineering company that increased the proportion of women in leadership positions from 12 % to over 20 % within 10 years, in part through mentoring programs and platforms for networking and visibility. Short-term solutions such as external recruitment have generated momentum, but have not always led to sustainable integration. The true value of gender diversity arises only through influence, participation, and cultural embedding. This is where the differentiation begins today: Companies that view diversity strategically invest specifically in talent pipelines, succession planning, and culture. Others risk losing their appeal in the competition for young, ambitious women.

The percentage of newly appointed women on executive boards has fallen to 21 %, the lowest level since 2020—are we already seeing a reversal here?

This slowdown is often hastily interpreted as a backlash. A more plausible interpretation is that it marks a transition to a more mature phase of gender diversity. The focus is shifting from speed to sustainability. Companies that build diversity from within are successful: identifying talent early, developing it strategically, and entrusting it with operational responsibility. Leadership culture is equally crucial. Diversity thrives where performance, trust, and values matter—rather than mere presence or power dynamics. The slowdown is therefore less a warning sign than a sign of maturity. I am impressed by companies that keep a close eye on their talent pipeline across all leadership levels. Only those who systematically develop talent from the bottom up and attach equal importance to every level achieve sustainable success. Accordingly, successful companies invest in forward-looking talent planning, for example, based on the «grandfather» principle: The direct supervisor is supported by a sparring partner from the next higher management level to ensure a well-founded assessment of potential. Successes in internal development motivate everyone involved and strengthen long-term commitment.

At the same time, an unusually large number of women are leaving executive positions—do we know why these departures are so high?

This increased turnover is not an indication of a lack of suitability, but rather a stress test for existing leadership systems. Women are appointed to executive roles from outside the company at a higher-than-average rate, often with less established networks and a short probationary period, while at the same time facing very high expectations regarding impact and performance. Added to this is their high market value, which further encourages them to seek new opportunities. Many of these departures are therefore not involuntary but rather conscious decisions. When culture, governance, or institutional support are not aligned, high-performing women draw their own conclusions. From an overall perspective, therefore, it is often not the women who are too volatile, but the structures they enter. This presents a key challenge for many companies. Anyone seeking to achieve a breakthrough in the sustainable integration of high-performing women into top management should critically examine whether existing leadership models, expectations, and support systems are actually suitable for retaining diversity in the long term and making it effective.

The pipeline effect doesn't seem to be working: Having more women in middle management doesn't automatically lead to more women at the top. Where exactly does the chain break?

The bottleneck lies between middle management and top leadership. My experience shows that women at this level often do not actively position themselves for advancement. This makes it all the more important to identify strong women early on, provide them with targeted additional support, and give them the visibility they need to gain experience even outside their own organization. Women continue to be overrepresented in service roles. However, these service roles often offer only limited opportunities for advancement to the top leadership level. It is therefore crucial to attract women to business roles early on and to assign them P&L responsibility in a timely manner, which in turn builds visibility and credibility. Success in the pipeline does not come from programs, but from consistently translating potential into responsibility.

Is gender diversity in Switzerland still viewed more as a regulatory requirement rather than a genuine competitive advantage?

While some companies continue to view diversity primarily from a regulatory perspective, others are already leveraging diversity strategically. We are thus clearly at a crossroads between compliance and strategic advantage. The regulatory perspective is becoming less dominant, while the strategic integration of diversity is gaining importance. In my view, clear “winner” companies can already be identified in today’s labor market: these are the organizations that have strong women at all leadership levels and are thus able to attract additional female leaders. These companies have designed their work models and framework conditions in such a way that they can not only attract women but also retain them in the long term and provide targeted professional development. In light of an increasingly acute shortage of highly qualified young talent, it is precisely these companies that will have a sustainable competitive advantage.

«We are in a fundamentally different situation today than we were 20 years ago. Back then, companies had to actively seek out women; today, they're right there.»

Starting in 2026, companies will be required to explain why they have not met the gender targets—do you expect this to result in real pressure, or will it mostly lead to formal explanations?

First and foremost, we can expect significantly greater transparency. Well-positioned companies will likely use this disclosure for their talent acquisition efforts as well, credibly showcasing their successful strategies for greater diversity. However, genuine change among laggards will require more than just formal statements. Transformation only occurs when failure to comply results in concrete consequences, such as reduced appeal to female applicants. Ultimately, the attitude of the companies is decisive: Is the requirement viewed as a mere formality, or is it used as an opportunity for further development?

In your opinion, what would be the most effective measures to increase the proportion of women in executive management again in the short term?

As previously mentioned, increasing gender diversity is not a short-term endeavor. While there are companies that specifically include service roles held by women in their executive leadership, these positions often disappear from the top management level again during the first reorganization under a new CEO. What often remains is a woman who was only temporarily part of the executive board, and the lasting impact is limited. In many cases, this back-and-forth also leads to personal hurt. Promoting gender diversity is, rather, a cultural issue that spans generations. It takes time for women to advance through the leadership hierarchy. The path from entering the workforce to reaching the executive board typically requires about 20 years of professional experience. Even though the pool of qualified women is growing steadily, it will take time for them to become more widely represented on executive boards. Furthermore, minorities can only establish themselves sustainably once they are able to build on a shared cultural foundation. This foundation is usually more firmly established in internal career paths than in external recruitment. If talented individuals are specifically poached from competitors, there is a risk that they will not be able to integrate sufficiently within the available time, and the hoped-for impact will fail to materialize.

In your opinion, are stricter regulatory measures needed—or does the solution clearly lie in corporate culture?

Regulation provides impetus, and it has already had this effect. However, sustainable change can only come about through the further development of corporate culture. Additional regulatory interventions would likely promote formalism above all else, without achieving the desired depth. What matters far more is whether companies adapt their leadership and work models in such a way that diversity is effectively and sustainably integrated, and both genders feel comfortable working «together.» Against the backdrop of a talent shortage driven by demographic shifts, pressure is mounting on companies to position themselves as attractive employers. This includes specifically tapping into the potential of highly qualified women. This increasing competition for talent will noticeably accelerate the development of gender diversity.

Executive teams are getting older and older—could this trend also be hindering greater diversity, not just in terms of gender, but in general?

In my view, the issue of age is systematically underestimated in the diversity debate. On average, executive teams are getting older because the requirements for professional experience and proven track records are constantly rising. This also acts as a brake on the development of diversity. Leadership teams that are homogeneous in terms of age tend to recruit people with similar experiences, career paths, and ways of thinking. This affects not only women, but also younger executives, international professionals, and career changers. The real problem here is not age itself, but the lack of intergenerational mix. Where leadership bodies remain stable over long periods, networks narrow, succession processes are delayed, and renewal becomes increasingly difficult. Anyone who seriously wants to advance diversity—in terms of gender as well as perspectives and ways of thinking—cannot avoid addressing the issue of age structure in executive leadership. Diversity fails less because of a lack of good will than because of a lack of mobility at the top.

«The bottleneck is no longer in the talent pool, but in the existing systems.»

They warn of «strategic blind spots» caused by a lack of generational diversity—do you also see similar blind spots resulting from a lack of gender diversity?

Yes, I see these blind spots very clearly, and they have a similar effect. Just as with a lack of generational diversity, a lack of gender diversity also creates strategic blind spots, especially when leadership bodies remain very homogeneous over an extended period of time. Such teams tend to view issues from similar perspectives, assess risks in similar ways, and take alternative scenarios seriously only at a late stage. The key point here is that neither age nor gender is about symbolic representation, but rather about cognitive diversity. If certain areas of experience are systematically missing—whether it be female leadership experience or the perspective of younger generations—the quality of decisions suffers. This is confirmed by both research findings and my own practical experience. The situation becomes particularly critical where age and gender homogeneity overlap. In such constellations, the blind spots reinforce one another. Anyone who wants to ensure strategic adaptability must address both dimensions together; otherwise, diversity remains nothing more than lip service.

Looking ahead to the next five years: Do you expect a new surge in diversity—or rather a prolonged period of stagnation in Swiss executive circles?

Looking ahead to the next five years, I expect a period of consolidation in the short term, but I am clearly optimistic in the long term. Much has been achieved in recent years; now the focus is less on new targets and more on quality, stability, and sustainable integration. In my view, the key driver here is no longer regulation, but rather whether companies succeed in establishing viable models for careers, leadership, and family life. There are many highly qualified, ambitious women today. The bottleneck no longer lies in the talent pool, but in the existing systems. The next surge in diversity will therefore not come from additional regulations, but from mature talent development and succession models, flexible leadership roles, realistic career paths, and a corporate culture that enables professional success across different life stages. We find ourselves in a fundamentally different situation today than we did 20 years ago. Back then, companies had to actively seek out women; today, they are already there. The key question is whether companies can retain them in the long term, help them grow, and integrate them sustainably.

Since 2006, the Schilling Report has been examining the composition of executive boards, and since 2010, it has also been examining the boards of directors of the 100 largest Swiss companies. Since 2016, the analysis has also included the public sector, covering top executives in the cantons and the federal administration. Also since 2016, the study’s publishers have surveyed Switzerland’s 250 most significant companies every two years regarding the proportion of women in their overall workforce and at management levels below the executive board. In this way, the Schilling Report assesses companies’ gender diversity pipelines, which reveal the potential of women who can advance to the next higher level of leadership.

Guido Schilling works as a consultant specializing in the search for top management and board of directors positions and is a founding partner of the executive search firm schilling partners ag. He is also the publisher of the Schilling Report. He is also a co-founder and chairman of the board of directors of Maag Music & Arts AG, a company that produces musicals and shows in Zurich.