Gender equity improves performance.  Full Stop.

Better Boards Start Here: Making the Case for Gender Diversity in Leadership

Gender equity is defined as systems that provide fair access to opportunities and outcomes regardless of gender. It is about recognizing and removing barriers that have historically limited who gets a seat at the table. It is not about lowering standards or choosing people based on anything other than ability and contribution.

Lately, conversations about equity have drawn criticism. The basic critique goes like this (I think): focusing on equity creates unfair systems, promotes unqualified people, and runs counter to meritocracy.  I understand that concern. But the critique often assumes that meritocracy is already working cleanly and consistently. It assumes the system today rewards talent and effort alone. That is not how real systems work in practice.

Two encounters recently reminded me why our traditional sense of meritocracy falls short and why pursuing equity often improves outcomes.

Outliers and the myth of pure merit

I’ve had a few Malcolm Gladwell books on my shelf for years and finally picked up Outliers: The Story of Success again.

One of his examples is about professional hockey players. A large share of elite players are born in the first half of the year. That is not because birth month makes someone better at hockey. It is because youth hockey has age cutoffs. Kids born earlier are slightly older within their age group, which means they are often bigger, stronger, and more developed when talent scouts start evaluating them. Those kids get better teams, more coaching, more ice time, and a feedback loop begins that compounds early advantages into real performance differences.

This example shows that success is shaped by context and opportunity long before anyone evaluates “merit.” Talent matters. Hard work matters. But opportunity multiplies both, and systems built without awareness of structural advantages can distort what we call merit.

Gender diversity and performance on boards

Separately, I worked with Julie Kuchepatov at SAGE (Seafood and Gender Equality) to look at board performance and what can be done to strengthen outcomes. SAGE is a nonprofit working to advance gender equality in the global seafood sector by amplifying underrepresented voices, building networks, and helping organizations integrate gender equality into their practices. Women remain underrepresented in leadership in the seafood industry, with very few women in CEO or decision-making roles, despite their substantial contributions at many levels of the sector.

The work with SAGE reinforced something that research across sectors has also shown: gender diversity in leadership and governance correlates with stronger performance, not just as a feel-good metric but in measurable ways.

But don’t just take it from me

Studies looking at corporate boards find that companies with more gender diversity in leadership positions tend to have better financial performance and decision quality. One analysis of thousands of companies worldwide showed that increasing female representation in leadership correlated with higher profitability.

According to McKinsey & Company’s 2020 report, “Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters”, companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25% more likely to have above-average profitability, up from 21% in 2017 and 15% in 2014, showing a growing performance gap over time.

The reasons are intuitive and supported by research. More diverse boards bring a wider range of perspectives and experiences to discussions. That tends to produce more robust debate, fewer blind spots, and better risk assessment. It also tends to surface priorities and insights that homogenous groups often miss. When decision makers reflect a broader range of experiences, they tend to make decisions that are more grounded in the realities of the communities they serve and the challenges they face.

The research doesn’t suggest that adding women magically fixes anything. What it does show is that diversity is not just an ethical goal. It is a practical one. Diverse teams make better decisions on complex issues because they are more likely to challenge assumptions rather than reinforce them.

There are simple, foundational changes that make a difference

I am not arguing that equity work needs to be complex or that every organization needs to reinvent itself overnight. But there are simple, foundational changes that consistently show impact:

• Look beyond familiar networks when recruiting leaders.
• Define the skills and perspectives a board actually needs, and measure against that.
• Structure evaluation and selection so it focuses on relevant criteria rather than reflexive habits.

These are practical steps grounded in what research shows about how groups perform better when they intentionally broaden who is invited into the conversation.

And don’t just take my word for it. Research cited above shows a measurable connection between gender diversity in leadership and organizational performance. SAGE’s work in the seafood sector reflects the same principle: systems that acknowledge inequality and create space for broader participation tend to be more resilient and adaptive.

Why this matters to purpose

For me, this connects back to purpose in a straightforward way.

Purpose is not just a statement. It shows up in the decisions we make, especially around leadership and governance. If our purpose includes stronger performance, more resilient organizations, better decision making, and outcomes that matter to communities, then how we structure opportunities and who we include matters.

Gender equity is not opposed to merit. It is a more complete understanding of what merit really looks like once we acknowledge how systems shape who gets opportunities in the first place.

Check out the full article here.