But losing ground on progress towards workplace gender equality risks dulling a vital competitive edge for Australian businesses in tight labour markets and a fiercely competitive global marketplace.
Fewer than one in three organisations have a gender-balanced workforce, which is defined as at least 40 per cent women and 40 per cent men.
Our latest count is just 27.3 per cent, which is progress, but fragile and uneven across sectors.
Service industries are moving fastest, while construction, mining and manufacturing remain stubbornly male-dominated.
Boards are edging closer to parity, but only one in four employers report balanced leadership teams, and female CEO and executive shares have flatlined about 25 per cent, which is a red flag.
Loading
Appointments and promotions move the dial, but resignation rates among women are eroding gains, especially where progression remains blocked.
In too many organisations, the strongest force pushing balance backward is that women leave at higher rates than men.
Momentum will stall unless we fix retention by reforming work design, supporting caring responsibilities and removing career cliffs for part-time and flexible roles.
New data lets us look under the bonnet of pay gaps.
Many roles are now within 5 per cent of parity on horizontal comparisons of gender pay differences, which is welcome, but structure – not just salary setting within jobs – is doing the heavy lifting.
Women and men are clustered in different occupations and career trajectories, with women over-represented in lower-paid roles and men in higher-paid technical, trade and profit-and-loss positions.
If we ignore segregation, we will keep treating symptoms while the underlying condition persists.
Publishing employer-level pay gaps sharpens incentives while new legislative requirements create levers for change.
Compliance alone will not deliver the performance gains that balanced leadership unlocks.
Here is the agenda, drawn directly from this year’s findings and tested against what works.
First, set targets and track resignations to find the leaks – especially where women exit organisations faster than men – and fix them through better work design, flexibility, parental leave and manager support, with progress tied to boards and succession.
Second, build balanced pipelines into profit-and-loss and operational roles by placing and sponsoring women in line-management, finance and profit-centre positions.
This is where future chief executives come from.
Third, normalise flexible leadership so advancement and hybrid work coexist, embedding inclusive cultures that retain scarce skills.
Fourth, redesign entry pathways to break segregation by targeting women for trades and tech while broadening male pipelines in care and education, backed by role models, mentoring and sponsorship.
Loading
And finally, anchor environmental, social and governance indicators to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency reporting metrics so measures are credible, comparable and outcomes focused.
The pay-off for business is substantial.
Balanced leadership is linked not only to higher company value, but also to stronger profitability and resilience, a valuable business attribute that should be a centrepiece strategy.
It shapes how businesses adapt to shocks, attract and retain scarce skills, and execute on innovation.
Treating gender balance as a core strategic goal rather than a compliance afterthought keeps Australian firms competitive at home and abroad.
The bigger national story matters too. Australia’s skills shortages will not ease without tapping the full breadth of our talent.
Removing barriers that prevent capable people moving into and up through high-value roles is how we expand capacity and lift productivity.
The evidence shows that organisations perform better when leadership is more gender balanced, and the economy does too.
Ten years into this series, we know what works. Transparency raises the floor, targets focus attention and balanced pipelines. Flexible leadership and inclusive cultures convert intent into outcomes.
The risk now is complacency and assuming change will trickle through organically.
It will not.
Without deliberate action, leadership balance will plateau, segregation will persist and the costs in lost value, lost innovation and lost talent will mount.
The choice is stark: step back and fall behind or step up and reap the dividends of balance.
