Sofia Khaira joins us today to bridge the gap between corporate diversity goals and the lived reality of women in the workplace. As a specialist in diversity, equity, and inclusion, Sofia has spent her career helping organizations move beyond surface-level recruitment to build deeply inclusive talent management systems. Today, she shares her insights on why the recent surge of women in FTSE boardrooms hasn’t yet translated to the C-suite and how businesses can fix the “leaky pipeline” through sponsorship, allyship, and a radical reimagining of the linear career path.
Board representation among FTSE companies has seen a celebratory surge recently, yet there is still a notable gap in women reaching C-suite roles. Why is a heavy focus on recruitment failing to solve this disparity at the highest levels of leadership?
The reality is that we cannot simply recruit our way out of a systemic retention problem. While getting women into the building is a start, the real work lies in how we embed gender balance into the very fabric of succession planning and workplace culture. Many organizations are still treating gender equality as a checkbox for the hiring team rather than looking at the progression bottlenecks that happen in the middle of the ladder. If we don’t address why women are burning out or why they lack visibility with senior stakeholders, we will continue to see a “leaky pipeline” where talent evaporates before it ever reaches the top. As one CEO noted, if you want to prioritize gender and develop talent internally, you have to be willing to commit to the work for at least 10 years to see a lasting transformation.
When we look at the talent pipeline, many organizations struggle to identify exactly where they are losing high-potential women. What are the specific “blockers” that management should be looking for to improve retention?
To truly uncover these blockers, management must look beyond the spreadsheets and analyze the everyday experience of their female employees. We often see that women are being held back by “cookie-cutter” assumptions about their ambitions or by poor line management that fails to recognize their contributions. There is often a hidden issue with how work is designed; if the system relies on an “always-on” expectation, it creates a rigidity that forces women to choose between their careers and their personal lives. We also see a lack of intentional support at transition points, such as moving into a role with P&L responsibility or taking that first daunting step into a leadership position. Organizations need to investigate whether their women are receiving the same visibility as their male counterparts or if they are being sidelined due to a lack of advocacy from the top.
You’ve mentioned that sponsorship is a critical missing link in career progression. How can leaders move beyond mere mentorship to provide the kind of advocacy that actually moves the needle for women?
Mentorship is about giving advice, but sponsorship is about giving opportunity, and that is a distinction that many managers fail to act upon. We need leaders to actively measure who is receiving the high-stakes “stretch assignments” across different functions and who is getting significant time with senior clients. It is about a leader putting their own professional reputation on the line to say, “This person is ready for commercial responsibility.” Without this active advocacy, women often find themselves stuck in “velvet ghettos” or support roles that don’t lead to the C-suite. Effective sponsorship means intentionally opening doors and ensuring that a woman’s name is the one mentioned when a high-profile project or a promotion opportunity arises behind closed doors.
Many workplace cultures still value being “present in the room” over actual output, which can be a major barrier. How can senior leaders model a more flexible, non-linear path to success without sacrificing performance?
We have to move toward a culture that values outcomes over “face time,” and that shift must start with leaders “caring loudly” and being visible about their own boundaries. When a senior executive explicitly mentions they are leaving to pick up their children or managing a personal commitment, it normalizes the idea that success isn’t a single, linear pathway. This type of visible flexibility helps to dismantle the “always-on” culture that often leads to burnout and career stagnation for women. By celebrating different ways of working, we create an environment where talent is measured by the quality of the work rather than the number of hours spent sitting at a desk. It is about recognizing that life stages—like caring for family—are part of a long-term career journey, not a detour that disqualifies someone from high-level leadership.
Male allyship is often discussed as a concept, but it frequently lacks practical application. What specific skills do men in leadership need to develop to move from being passive supporters to active change-makers?
Allyship is a skill that must be practiced, not just an awareness of gender issues, and it requires moving past the fear and discomfort that often holds men back. We work with leaders to build the confidence to challenge bias in the moment, whether that’s calling out a dismissive comment in a meeting or “calling in” a colleague afterward to discuss a systemic issue. It is about training men to notice the subtle gender biases in our current systems and to act as effective sponsors who reduce the barriers women face daily. Many men support gender balance in principle, but they lack the tools to tackle unconscious bias when they see it playing out in real-time. When we equip male leaders with these skills, they become partners in the work, helping to ensure that women feel supported and valued throughout their entire career trajectory.
Transition points, such as returning from parental leave, are often where companies lose their best female talent. What does “intentional support” look like during these pivotal moments?
Intentional support during transitions means moving away from assumptions and toward personalized, proactive communication. We’ve seen incredible results when companies implement “keep-in-touch” days during maternity leave, which prevents women from feeling isolated or disconnected from the business. One CEO shared that once they started actively reaching out and keeping those lines of communication open, retention rates improved significantly because employees felt like they still belonged. It’s also about providing coordinated support when someone takes on a new level of responsibility, ensuring they have the resources and the psychological safety to succeed in a new role. If we don’t take action at these career-breaking moments, we risk letting talented women be swept aside by a system that wasn’t built to accommodate their lives.
What is your forecast for the future of gender balance in executive leadership?
I believe we are entering an era where the “how” of gender equality will finally take center stage, shifting away from the “why” as businesses realize that balanced leadership leads to better decision-making and a more accurate understanding of the real world. We are going to see a much more rigorous focus on data-driven retention, where companies track the distribution of commercial responsibilities as closely as they track their quarterly earnings. Over the next decade, the organizations that will win the talent war are those that abandon the “cookie-cutter” leadership model in favor of flexible, outcome-based cultures that embrace male allyship as a core competency. While the CEO I spoke with was right that this work takes 10 years of consistent effort, the momentum we are building now through intentional sponsorship and cultural change is irreversible. If we continue to focus on building the pipeline from the bottom up while fixing the blockers at the top, the C-suite will eventually reflect the diversity we already see in our boardrooms and our communities.
