Are Women Penalized for Serving on Prestigious Corporate Boards?
New research from Harvard Business Review indicates that women who serve on prominent corporate boards may be less likely to receive additional board appointments in the future.
Women’s representation in corporate boardrooms remains essential. Numerous studies have highlighted the value of diverse perspectives at the board level, showing that they contribute to stronger decision-making, better governance, and more balanced strategic outcomes.
Shellye Archambeau, a recipient of the 2026 Women of Power Legacy Award and a board member of Verizon, Roper Technologies, Okta, and Lineage, emphasized the importance of diverse viewpoints in leadership. She noted that bringing a wider range of perspectives to discussions helps organizations think more broadly, uncover new opportunities, and better identify potential risks.
When everyone approaches an issue from the same perspective, every idea can appear flawless. That’s why it’s important to have people who bring different viewpoints to the table,” she said.
New research from Harvard Business Review shifts the focus beyond boardroom representation and the value diverse directors bring to organizations, examining how board service impacts the directors themselves.
Analyzing nearly 2,000 directors serving on the FTSE 100—the largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange, where women now occupy roughly 45% of board seats—the study found that women are generally more likely than men to secure additional board appointments. However, that advantage appears to diminish as the prestige and visibility of the board increase, with women becoming less likely to receive subsequent board opportunities.
What explains this trend? The research points to two factors that many women leaders know all too well: heavier workloads and heightened scrutiny. As board positions become more prominent, women often face greater demands on their time and increased public and professional evaluation, which may influence their prospects for future appointments.
The researchers found that women serving on high-profile boards often face greater scrutiny than their male counterparts, with higher expectations for preparation, performance, and proof of competence. In addition, women are frequently called upon to take on extra responsibilities—such as mentoring colleagues, representing the organization externally, or supporting diversity and inclusion efforts. While these contributions are often informal and unrecognized, they can significantly increase workload and influence both how women are evaluated and their willingness to pursue additional opportunities. As a result, the prestige of a board position can sometimes act as a barrier to further advancement rather than a catalyst for it.
Other studies suggest that these added expectations may come with a substantial financial cost. According to employment law firm Fox & Partners, women serving on FTSE 100 boards earn considerably less than their male counterparts. Even when comparing similar roles, female executive directors and non-executive directors were found to earn significantly less than men in equivalent positions.
To address these challenges, researchers from leading academic institutions recommended that organizations take deliberate steps to ensure prestigious board appointments translate into career advancement for women. Their recommendations include clearly defining role expectations, regularly evaluating how responsibilities are distributed among board members, and providing the support, visibility, and sponsorship needed to help women fully benefit from leadership opportunities.
