Why Do Female CEOs Leave Their Positions So Quickly? The "Invisible Management" That Shortens the Tenure of Female Leaders: Organizational Design That Shortens the Tenure of Female CEOs

"Female CEOs step down from 'that seat' an average of three years earlier than men." The latest research results introduced by Brazil's economic media InfoMoney are signals that cannot be overlooked by those involved in corporate governance and talent strategy. The study is the "Global CEO Turnover Index" by global talent consultancy Russell Reynolds (RRA). It tracked 1,142 CEO transitions at publicly traded companies since 2018, showing that female CEOs have a tenure of "about 5 years," while males have "about 8 years." Furthermore, the risk of dismissal or resignation for female CEOs is 33% higher. Additionally, the proportion of women among new CEOs in the first half of 2025 is expected to remain at **9%**. These figures indicate a double barrier of "narrow entry (appointment) and short tenure (continuation)." InfoMoney　russellreynolds.com

Reading by Numbers: What is Happening

• Difference in Tenure: The average tenure of female CEOs is about 5.2 years, while males are about 8.1 years (consistent globally, though there are regional differences).russellreynolds.com

• Risk of Departure: Data from 2018 to 2024 shows that female CEOs have a 33% higher probability of being dismissed or resigning compared to males.InfoMoney

• Appointment Ratio: In the first half of 2025, women will make up 9% of new CEOs (11% for the entire year of 2024). The trend of improvement is stagnant.russellreynolds.com

• Differences in Reasons for Departure: The most common reason for men is "retirement (31%)," while for women it is "dismissal (32%)."InfoMoney

• Pipeline Issues: 76% of CEOs are promoted internally. However, access for women to "stepping stone" positions like CFO/COO is limited, putting them at a disadvantage in forming the pool of future CEO candidates.InfoMoney

These are not mere coincidences but suggest that structural and cultural factors are reflected in the statistics. RRA cites "evaluation bias," "weak support systems," and the so-called "glass cliff" (where female leaders are more likely to be chosen during crisis situations) as reasons why female CEOs tend to have shorter tenures and recommends actions for boards.russellreynolds.com

Voices from the Field: Where are the Invisible Barriers?

Brazilian female CEOs introduced by InfoMoney say that "rather than overt discrimination, it's the 'accumulation of small differences' like network etiquette and expectations of leadership that have an impact." The imbalance in childcare and caregiving responsibilities can also affect career discontinuity and decision-making at turning points. These **"silent barriers"** are repeatedly pointed out as factors that make it easier for female CEOs to receive harsh evaluations even when performance is favorable.InfoMoney

Reactions on Social Media: Three Layers of Support, Skepticism, and Action Proposals

These numbers sparked significant debate on social media. The overall tone can be divided into the following "three layers."

1. Supporters (Urgent Correction Needed)
   LinkedIn's news digest highlighted the key point that "female CEOs have a 33% higher risk of dismissal or resignation." In the comments section, there were prominent calls for "re-examining board evaluation criteria" and "expanding sponsorship."LinkedIn

2. Skeptics (Is Strict Selection the Reason?)
   Some argue that "tenure is short because they were chosen during crisis response phases." However, RRA's analysis emphasizes structural factors (bias in evaluation and support) that cannot be explained solely by "crisis-time appointments."russellreynolds.com

3. Action Proposal Advocates (Concrete Prescriptions)
   Following RRA's guidelines, there is a growing consensus on proposals to change board operations, such as "support systems before and after appointment," "reasonable evaluation criteria beyond performance KPIs," and "ensuring psychological safety."russellreynolds.com

Additionally, InfoMoney's post on X (formerly Twitter) received many reactions appreciating the "significance of making the numbers visible," functioning as a hub for dissemination.X (formerly Twitter)

Practical Checklist for Companies and Boards

If the gap in tenure is seen as an "organizational design issue" rather than "individual aptitude," it makes sense to fix it through systems. Below is a checklist based on RRA and various reports and practical insights that can be **"immediately implemented."**

1. Strengthening Pre-Appointment Onboarding
   ― Institutionalize the joint development of a 100-day plan, key person mapping, and bridging informal networks.russellreynolds.com

2. Re-examining Board Evaluation Design
   ― Inventory evaluations overly sensitive to short-term noise and subjective criteria dependent on gender norms. Consider the context of crisis response.Market Watch

3. Sponsorship and Mentoring
   ― Expand access to "invisible opportunities" (attendance at important meetings, planned external exposure).Financial Times

4. Expanding the "Stepping Stones" in the Pipeline
   ― KPI-ize the appointment of women to CFO/COO and business manager rotations. Since internal promotions are mainstream (76%), strengthen the preliminary stages.InfoMoney

5. Preventing the "Glass Cliff"
   ― When appointed during adverse phases, formalize the three-point set of resources, discretion, and time. Assess the feasibility of achieving goals in advance.Market Watch

6. Flexible Design Considering Family and Care Responsibilities
   ― Support during childcare and caregiving phases should also be available to top executives. Design so that "consideration ≠ demerit" with remote work and support systems.Financial Times
   
   

Why "Now": Macro Tectonic Shifts

The first half of 2025 will see the lowest level of new CEO appointments in eight years. With an increase in internal promotions and shorter tenures, there is also the possibility of a re-acceleration of transitions in H2 due to economic fluctuations. In other words, "who to support, when, and how" will affect corporate value more than ever. The shortening of female CEO tenures can be read as a sign that organizations are not withstanding this stress test.russellreynolds.com

Conclusion: From Numbers to "Operations"

The short tenure of female CEOs cannot be explained solely by personal qualities or life events. Differences in evaluation design, support allocation, and opportunity opening, the "operational differences," quietly accumulate to create disparities. Start with redesigning support and evaluation criteria before and after appointment, and then equalizing the pipeline stage. When both entry and tenure are optimized together, the numbers should begin to change.russellreynolds.com

Powered by Froala Editor