The Peter Problem: Exploring why there are more male CEOs called Peter than there are female CEOs in the UK

Jemima Vanhegan, Durham University Business School alumna, shares her findings on the gender divide at the top level of UK organisations and the barriers female CEOs still face today.

Having a female Chief Executive Officer (CEO) leading some of the top UK companies shouldn’t be a groundbreaking achievement, yet today, it still is. In 2020, there were more male CEOs called Peter than female CEOs in the UK. Underrepresentation of women at this level is a problem for organisations but, perhaps more importantly, it’s also detrimental for society and leadership as a whole. Similar levels of underrepresentation aren’t seen in other spheres of public leadership. Why then, is the gender divide so drastic amongst CEOs? When carrying out some initial reading around the topic, it became clear that there was a pressing need to understand the reasons for the underrepresentation of female CEOs, as academia had yet to explore this sufficiently. Previous studies were often not UK-based, outdated, or hadn’t spoken with the female CEOs themselves. Having women in some of the top roles is a win-win situation: other women have role models, so women in the pipeline increase, and society benefits from a broader outlook. Why then have we, as a society, neglected this topic for so long? Why have we failed to address such a significant problem?

Driven by a desire to understand why so few women are seen at the top level of organisations and to appreciate the problem from women themselves, I carried out a qualitative study using interviews to discover whether systematic problems existed which prohibited the advancement of women to CEO level. Initially, I hoped – perhaps naively – to interview every female FTSE 100 CEO. While all the women I spoke to were CEOs of wellrenowned UK companies, only one was from the FTSE 100. I certainly overestimated the accessibility of these high-profile women.

My research was guided by three prevailing research questions developed to target what I believed were the three main problem areas. The questions were: to what extent does education received impact the acquisition of CEO status for women; to what extent does an understanding of leadership and the way a woman leads contribute to their underrepresentation; and finally, what are the main barriers which existing female CEOs faced in their career progression and how does this explain their underrepresentation.

Traditionally, effective leadership styles have been seen to be developed for, and by, men. Those such as ‘The Great Man Theory’ were established on the premise that historical leaders, such as Napoleon, have provided society with the best example of a successful leader. Consequently, society has drawn patriarchal conclusions about what we think a great leader should be like, and, unfortunately, look like. However, since the establishment of theories like this one, society has changed and evolved. Why then, haven’t we let the traits and characteristics of leaders evolve with it?

The findings from my research revealed that all the women supported the need for change, stating that there was a fundamental need to redefine leadership to be more aligned with modern society. They also remarked on the need to eliminate the gender factor from leadership. A good leader is a good leader, regardless of sex.

While each of the women gave many responses to why they believed underrepresentation reigned, one of the most common answers was centred around sexism. The fact that even today this is still deemed to be a predominating issue is shocking. Sexism was experienced by these women in two different forms. Firstly, a couple of the participants commented that they’d been discriminated against because of their appearance, i.e. her hair was blonde so she wouldn’t be taken seriously; or she should wear glasses to look more intelligent. The detrimental impact that a woman’s appearance could have on her career trajectory (previously called the ‘beauty is beastly effect') was identified in studies in 1985. That 37 years later such a barrier is still pervading, implies a significant shakeup is still needed at executive level. Secondly, the participants argued that the continued existence of male networks limited their opportunities. For example, almost half of respondents stated that they’d been left out because of ‘old boys’ clubs’, or that their career advancement was limited because they couldn’t participate in boys’ days out to the golf course. The extent of the issue is best highlighted by one of the women who began golf lessons so she couldn’t be discriminated against. Why as a society are we still allowing factors like these to prevail and restrict talent? Society shouldn’t need women to join a boys’ club to succeed.

Fundamentally, it became plain that the lack of women at the top has no justified reasoning. While my study addressed and answered the proposed research questions, it also produced other avenues for exploration. Given the heavy impact having children has and will continue to have on women, it would be beneficial to understand the moderating effect this has on women’s career progression. By understanding this impact, we as a society can hopefully implement means to limit this factor. Another key finding from the investigation was the emphasis on the outdated nature of the pathways to CEO and the structure and expectations of it. More