Why there are more men than women leading companies in India
Addressing the ongoing 'missing middle' dilemma as women exit mid-management roles in a changing corporate landscape.
Gender Diversity in Corporate India
1. Introduction
Gender diversity in corporate leadership remains limited in India despite regulatory measures and gradual progress. Women’s participation in corporate boards has increased since gender diversity laws were introduced in 2014, but representation still remains far from balanced. Structural workplace barriers and social constraints continue to restrict women’s advancement to top corporate positions.
2. Current Status of Gender Diversity in Corporate Boards
Recent data from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) highlights the continuing gender gap.
Key statistics:
- Around 68% of registered company directors are men.
- This proportion has remained largely unchanged over the past four years, despite rising director registrations.
- Women hold a minor share of board positions across sectors.
A comparison between private and government companies shows uneven progress.
Women directors in companies:
- Private companies: about 29%
- Government-owned companies: about 20%
- Maharatna and Navratna PSUs: about 11% (FY2025)
The relatively weaker representation in top public-sector enterprises indicates that institutional leadership in state-owned firms has been slower to adopt diversity practices.
3. Legal Framework Promoting Gender Diversity
India introduced legal requirements to increase women’s participation in corporate boards.
Major regulatory provisions
Companies Act, 2013
- Certain classes of companies must appoint at least one woman director.
Eligibility criteria for mandatory woman director:
- Listed companies
- Companies with turnover above ₹300 crore
- Companies with paid-up capital above ₹100 crore
Later reforms strengthened the requirement.
SEBI regulation
- The top 1,000 listed companies must appoint at least one independent woman director.
Impact of regulations
- Around 97% of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange now have at least one woman director.
- Women directors increased from about 5% in 2014 to significantly higher levels today.
However, many companies have only one woman director, suggesting that compliance is often minimal and symbolic rather than transformative.
4. International Comparison
India performs better than some comparable economies, but the overall gap remains significant.
Women representation on boards:
-
India: higher representation due to regulatory mandates
-
China:
- State-owned firms – 13%
- Private firms – 18%
This comparison indicates that policy intervention can influence board diversity, though deeper structural change is still required.
5. Structural Reasons for Low Female Representation
A major factor behind limited female representation is the “missing middle” phenomenon.
The “Missing Middle” in Corporate Careers
Many women enter the workforce but drop out at mid-management levels, which are critical stages for promotion to senior leadership.
This results in a shrinking pool of women eligible for board-level roles.
Workplace culture barriers
Several organisational practices discourage women from continuing long-term careers:
-
Informal gender bias and misogyny
-
Women being pushed into “soft departments” such as:
- Human resources
- Corporate social responsibility
-
Networking practices that exclude women, such as informal meetings in bars or late-night social gatherings
-
Meetings scheduled outside working hours
Such practices limit access to leadership networks and decision-making spaces.
Social and domestic constraints
In India, women often carry a disproportionate share of household responsibilities, including:
- Childcare
- Housework
- Elder care
These pressures make it difficult to sustain careers in demanding corporate environments, particularly during mid-career stages.
6. Limits of Regulatory Solutions
Legal mandates have improved representation but cannot fully address structural barriers.
Regulations can ensure:
- Minimum representation on boards
- Formal inclusion
However, they cannot alone change:
- Workplace culture
- Informal networking structures
- Gender roles in society
Therefore, institutional reforms must be complemented by organisational and social change.
7. Role of Economic Liberalisation and Global Competition
Economic structure also influences gender diversity in corporate leadership.
Many Indian firms operate mainly in protected domestic markets, which reduces competitive pressure.
When firms face global competition, they are forced to:
- Attract the best available talent
- Improve corporate governance
- Enhance diversity and inclusion
The information technology (IT) sector illustrates this pattern. Because IT firms are deeply integrated into global markets, they generally show better gender diversity practices.
Greater integration with global supply chains could therefore increase demand for skilled professionals, making discrimination against qualified women economically costly.
8. Key Takeaways
- Gender diversity in corporate boards in India has improved since regulatory mandates were introduced in 2014.
- Women still remain significantly underrepresented, especially in public-sector enterprises.
- Many companies follow a token approach, appointing only one woman director to meet legal requirements.
- Structural barriers such as workplace culture, networking exclusion, and domestic responsibilities limit women’s advancement.
- Economic liberalisation and integration with global markets may indirectly promote gender diversity by expanding the demand for talent.
Attribution
Original content sources and authors
Syllabus classification
How this article maps to GS papers
Main syllabus
GS1Women EmpowermentQuick Q&A
What is the current status of gender diversity on corporate boards in India, and how has it evolved since the introduction of gender-diversity regulations?
Gender diversity on corporate boards in India has improved over the past decade but remains limited in terms of meaningful representation. According to data from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), approximately 68% of directors registered in January were male, indicating that women remain significantly underrepresented in corporate leadership. Although there has been a steady increase in the number of women directors since gender diversity regulations were introduced in 2014, the pace of progress has slowed in recent years.
The Companies Act, 2013 introduced mandatory provisions requiring certain listed companies to appoint at least one woman director on their boards. Later reforms strengthened this requirement by mandating that the top 1,000 listed companies appoint at least one independent woman director. As a result, by March 2025 nearly 97% of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange had at least one woman director. This represents a substantial improvement compared to 2014, when women accounted for only about 5% of corporate directorships.
However, the progress is uneven and often symbolic. More than half of companies still have only a single woman director, suggesting that compliance is frequently limited to meeting the minimum regulatory requirement rather than promoting genuine diversity. Additionally, representation is even lower in government-owned companies, where women account for around 20% of board positions, compared with about 29% in private firms. These figures indicate that while regulatory interventions have improved representation, structural barriers still limit women’s participation in corporate leadership.
The Companies Act, 2013 introduced mandatory provisions requiring certain listed companies to appoint at least one woman director on their boards. Later reforms strengthened this requirement by mandating that the top 1,000 listed companies appoint at least one independent woman director. As a result, by March 2025 nearly 97% of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange had at least one woman director. This represents a substantial improvement compared to 2014, when women accounted for only about 5% of corporate directorships.
However, the progress is uneven and often symbolic. More than half of companies still have only a single woman director, suggesting that compliance is frequently limited to meeting the minimum regulatory requirement rather than promoting genuine diversity. Additionally, representation is even lower in government-owned companies, where women account for around 20% of board positions, compared with about 29% in private firms. These figures indicate that while regulatory interventions have improved representation, structural barriers still limit women’s participation in corporate leadership.
Why does gender diversity in corporate leadership remain limited in India despite regulatory mandates?
Despite legal provisions promoting gender diversity, women remain underrepresented in corporate leadership due to a combination of structural, social, and institutional factors. While regulations require companies to appoint at least one woman director, many organisations comply with the rule in a minimalistic manner without fundamentally changing workplace structures or leadership pipelines.
Several key factors explain the persistence of gender imbalance:
Another important factor is the phenomenon often described as the “missing middle”. Many women enter the workforce but drop out at mid-management levels due to family responsibilities, inflexible work structures, or limited career advancement opportunities. As a result, fewer women remain in the corporate pipeline to reach executive or board-level positions.
Therefore, while regulatory measures have created opportunities for representation, deeper institutional reforms—including supportive workplace policies, leadership development programmes, and gender-sensitive organisational cultures—are necessary to achieve meaningful gender diversity in corporate leadership.
Several key factors explain the persistence of gender imbalance:
- Token compliance: Many companies appoint a single woman director merely to satisfy regulatory requirements.
- Family-linked appointments: In some cases, companies appoint promoters’ relatives rather than independent professional women.
- Limited leadership pipeline: Women are underrepresented in senior management roles, reducing the pool of candidates for board positions.
- Workplace culture: Gender biases and exclusionary work practices hinder women’s career progression.
Another important factor is the phenomenon often described as the “missing middle”. Many women enter the workforce but drop out at mid-management levels due to family responsibilities, inflexible work structures, or limited career advancement opportunities. As a result, fewer women remain in the corporate pipeline to reach executive or board-level positions.
Therefore, while regulatory measures have created opportunities for representation, deeper institutional reforms—including supportive workplace policies, leadership development programmes, and gender-sensitive organisational cultures—are necessary to achieve meaningful gender diversity in corporate leadership.
How do corporate culture and workplace practices influence women’s participation in leadership roles?
Corporate culture plays a crucial role in determining whether women can advance to leadership positions within organisations. Even when formal regulations promote gender diversity, informal workplace norms and practices often create barriers that prevent women from progressing beyond mid-level management roles.
Several aspects of workplace culture can limit women’s participation:
These factors interact with broader social realities. In many Indian households, women continue to bear a disproportionate share of domestic work, childcare, and elder care responsibilities. Without supportive workplace policies such as flexible work arrangements or childcare support, balancing professional and personal responsibilities becomes challenging.
Therefore, improving gender diversity in corporate leadership requires not only legal mandates but also organisational reforms. Companies must actively create inclusive work environments, mentorship opportunities, and leadership development pathways that enable women to remain in the workforce and advance to senior decision-making roles.
Several aspects of workplace culture can limit women’s participation:
- Gender stereotyping: Women are frequently assigned to roles considered “soft,” such as human resources or corporate social responsibility, rather than strategic leadership roles.
- Exclusionary networking practices: Informal professional networking often occurs in male-dominated environments, such as social gatherings or after-hours meetings.
- Inflexible work schedules: Meetings scheduled outside working hours may disadvantage employees with caregiving responsibilities.
- Implicit bias: Perceptions about leadership abilities may favour male candidates for senior roles.
These factors interact with broader social realities. In many Indian households, women continue to bear a disproportionate share of domestic work, childcare, and elder care responsibilities. Without supportive workplace policies such as flexible work arrangements or childcare support, balancing professional and personal responsibilities becomes challenging.
Therefore, improving gender diversity in corporate leadership requires not only legal mandates but also organisational reforms. Companies must actively create inclusive work environments, mentorship opportunities, and leadership development pathways that enable women to remain in the workforce and advance to senior decision-making roles.
What explains the ‘missing middle’ phenomenon in corporate gender diversity, and what are its implications?
The “missing middle” phenomenon refers to the sharp decline in women’s representation at mid-management levels within organisations. While many women enter the workforce at entry-level positions, a significant proportion leave or stagnate in their careers before reaching senior leadership roles. This creates a weak pipeline of women candidates for executive and board-level positions.
Several interconnected factors contribute to this phenomenon:
The implications of the missing middle are significant for both companies and the broader economy. Organisations lose access to a large pool of skilled professionals who could contribute to innovation and strategic decision-making. Research in management studies indicates that diverse leadership teams often perform better in terms of creativity, risk management, and governance standards.
Addressing the missing middle requires targeted interventions such as leadership mentorship programmes, gender-sensitive workplace policies, and institutional mechanisms that support women during critical mid-career stages. Without such measures, regulatory mandates alone may not significantly increase women’s representation in corporate leadership.
Several interconnected factors contribute to this phenomenon:
- Work–life balance challenges: Women often face increased family responsibilities during mid-career years.
- Lack of career advancement opportunities: Limited access to mentorship and leadership training programmes.
- Organisational bias: Promotion systems that favour traditional leadership stereotypes.
- Inadequate support systems: Lack of childcare facilities or flexible work policies.
The implications of the missing middle are significant for both companies and the broader economy. Organisations lose access to a large pool of skilled professionals who could contribute to innovation and strategic decision-making. Research in management studies indicates that diverse leadership teams often perform better in terms of creativity, risk management, and governance standards.
Addressing the missing middle requires targeted interventions such as leadership mentorship programmes, gender-sensitive workplace policies, and institutional mechanisms that support women during critical mid-career stages. Without such measures, regulatory mandates alone may not significantly increase women’s representation in corporate leadership.
How does India’s performance in gender diversity on corporate boards compare with other countries, and what lessons can be drawn?
India’s progress in gender diversity on corporate boards is mixed when compared with other major economies. On the positive side, regulatory reforms have significantly increased the presence of women directors since 2014. For example, nearly 97% of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange now have at least one woman director, reflecting the impact of mandatory gender diversity provisions under corporate law.
When compared with China, India performs relatively better in certain areas. Women hold about 13% of board seats in Chinese state-owned firms and around 18% in private companies, whereas the share in Indian private firms is roughly 29%. This suggests that India’s regulatory framework has achieved measurable progress in increasing women’s participation at the board level.
However, when compared with many Western economies, India still lags behind. Countries such as Norway, France, and Germany have implemented stronger gender quota systems that require a significant proportion of board seats to be held by women. In Norway, for example, legislation mandates that approximately 40% of board members in publicly listed companies be women.
The global experience suggests that legal mandates can be effective in improving representation, but they must be complemented by broader institutional reforms. These include leadership development programmes, corporate governance reforms, and social policies that support women’s participation in the workforce. India can draw valuable lessons from these international examples to strengthen gender diversity in corporate leadership.
When compared with China, India performs relatively better in certain areas. Women hold about 13% of board seats in Chinese state-owned firms and around 18% in private companies, whereas the share in Indian private firms is roughly 29%. This suggests that India’s regulatory framework has achieved measurable progress in increasing women’s participation at the board level.
However, when compared with many Western economies, India still lags behind. Countries such as Norway, France, and Germany have implemented stronger gender quota systems that require a significant proportion of board seats to be held by women. In Norway, for example, legislation mandates that approximately 40% of board members in publicly listed companies be women.
The global experience suggests that legal mandates can be effective in improving representation, but they must be complemented by broader institutional reforms. These include leadership development programmes, corporate governance reforms, and social policies that support women’s participation in the workforce. India can draw valuable lessons from these international examples to strengthen gender diversity in corporate leadership.
Critically examine whether mandatory gender diversity regulations are sufficient to ensure meaningful representation of women in corporate governance.
Mandatory gender diversity regulations have played an important role in increasing women’s representation on corporate boards, but their effectiveness is often limited by the way companies implement them. In India, legal provisions requiring at least one woman director have ensured that most listed companies include female representation at the board level. However, the impact of these regulations has sometimes been diluted by tokenistic compliance.
Advantages of mandatory regulations include:
However, several limitations remain. Many companies appoint a single woman director simply to comply with legal requirements, rather than actively promoting gender equality within their leadership structures. In some cases, appointments are made from within promoter families rather than selecting independent professionals with diverse expertise.
Therefore, mandatory regulations should be viewed as a starting point rather than a complete solution. To achieve meaningful gender diversity, companies must also focus on building inclusive workplace cultures, promoting women to senior management roles, and strengthening leadership pipelines. Only when these broader structural reforms accompany legal mandates can gender diversity become an integral part of corporate governance.
Advantages of mandatory regulations include:
- Immediate increase in representation: Legal mandates compel companies to include women in leadership roles.
- Improved corporate governance: Diverse boards can enhance decision-making and risk management.
- Symbolic impact: Greater visibility of women leaders encourages aspiring professionals.
However, several limitations remain. Many companies appoint a single woman director simply to comply with legal requirements, rather than actively promoting gender equality within their leadership structures. In some cases, appointments are made from within promoter families rather than selecting independent professionals with diverse expertise.
Therefore, mandatory regulations should be viewed as a starting point rather than a complete solution. To achieve meaningful gender diversity, companies must also focus on building inclusive workplace cultures, promoting women to senior management roles, and strengthening leadership pipelines. Only when these broader structural reforms accompany legal mandates can gender diversity become an integral part of corporate governance.
Imagine you are advising the government on improving gender diversity in India’s corporate sector. What policy and institutional reforms would you recommend?
Improving gender diversity in India’s corporate sector requires a combination of regulatory reforms, institutional support mechanisms, and cultural change. While existing regulations have increased the number of women directors, additional policy measures are necessary to ensure deeper and more meaningful representation.
Key policy recommendations could include:
Economic reforms could also play an important role. Greater integration with global supply chains and increased international competition may encourage companies to adopt merit-based hiring practices in order to access a broader talent pool. For example, sectors such as the information technology industry—which are globally integrated—tend to display relatively better gender diversity compared to sectors focused primarily on domestic markets.
Ultimately, improving gender diversity in corporate leadership is not only a matter of social justice but also an economic imperative. Diverse leadership teams enhance innovation, improve governance standards, and strengthen organisational performance. By adopting a holistic policy approach, India can create a corporate ecosystem that better utilises the talents and capabilities of its entire workforce.
Key policy recommendations could include:
- Strengthening board diversity requirements: Gradually increasing the minimum number of women directors for large companies.
- Leadership development programmes: Supporting mentorship and training initiatives to prepare women for senior management roles.
- Workplace support policies: Encouraging flexible work arrangements, childcare support, and parental leave policies.
- Transparency and disclosure: Requiring companies to publish gender diversity data across organisational levels.
Economic reforms could also play an important role. Greater integration with global supply chains and increased international competition may encourage companies to adopt merit-based hiring practices in order to access a broader talent pool. For example, sectors such as the information technology industry—which are globally integrated—tend to display relatively better gender diversity compared to sectors focused primarily on domestic markets.
Ultimately, improving gender diversity in corporate leadership is not only a matter of social justice but also an economic imperative. Diverse leadership teams enhance innovation, improve governance standards, and strengthen organisational performance. By adopting a holistic policy approach, India can create a corporate ecosystem that better utilises the talents and capabilities of its entire workforce.
Practice questions
1 question for mains preparation