Women remain underrepresented in leadership roles
‘There is a real GDP impact and a profitable impact on companies when women are around the decision-making table,’ says The Prosperity Project executive director Julie Savard-Shaw. / SUBMITTED PHOTO
Bias, caregiving responsibilities and outdated expectations about what makes an “ideal worker” continue to create barriers for women in leadership in sectors such as energy, infrastructure and finance, says Julie Savard-Shaw, executive director of The Prosperity Project.
“We're seeing more and more that women, particularly in middle management, are at the point where not only are they caring for their children, but they're also caring for their aging parents … having those supports are really important to make sure that women can actually continue participating in the economy and staying in their role and going up the leadership ladder,” Savard-Shaw said.
Workplace culture can also present challenges, she said. The traditional “ideal worker” is often someone who stays at the office from 9 to 5 and attends after-work networking events — expectations that can overlook the caregiving many women continue to shoulder.
There are also different expectations around women’s leadership styles, Savard-Shaw said. Society needs to rethink “what we consider to be an individual that can go up the leadership ladder, whether they’re a man or a woman.”
Savard-Shaw spoke to Means & Ways following the release of The Prosperity Project’s 2026 Annual Report Card on Gender Equity and Leadership, which found that women held 43.3% of leadership roles in Canada. The report says businesses and governments need to examine recruitment, retention, promotion and succession practices to address persistent gaps.
The following Q&A was edited for length and clarity.
MW: The report found that “Women represent 43.3% of leadership roles in 2026, broadly in line with 2025 and still below the 2022 peak. No leadership category has reached parity, and the gap between levels is greatest at the most senior levels.” Why does this matter?
JS: Well, ultimately, it matters for everyone, government and industry because we know, and the research demonstrates, that when there are women in diversity around the decision-making table, the C-suite and at the board level, better decisions are made … It's also decisions that reflect the diversity of Canada's population … that are best for the country and for the economy.
MW: What was the most surprising stat for you in the report?
JS: The decline in women of colour's representation. The report says that it's the steepest decline in six years. That really surprised me because last year actually, we had seen an increase. I can't tell you why that's happened, but certainly for The Prosperity Project, it is leading us to want to understand why. Is it that there has been an increase in racial discrimination or bias in the workplace or is it because women of colour are exiting the workplace to start their own businesses? But if there is that decline in representation, that means that there is that decline at the higher levels and a decline in representation around the decision-making tables, and as I said, that's not good for Canada, for our economy and ultimately for Canadians.
MW: You wrote in The Hill Times, “A country as diverse and ambitious as Canada can’t build its future with yesterday’s leadership patterns. If we want an economy that serves everyone, everyone needs to be in the rooms where its future is decided.” What are the economic impacts of not having a diverse leadership?
JS: It's pretty old, but a McKinsey report shows that if Canada was to become gender equal, we could add $150 billion to our GDP. The Prosperity Project will be working to calculate updated data, but there is a real GDP impact and a profitable impact on companies when women are around the decision-making table.
MW: The report also says closing the gap requires sustained attention to promotion pathways, succession, planning and retention. Is the onus on the private sector to lead? What can governments do to address these gaps as well?
JS: Government always has a role to play in being the leader — demonstrating to others what the expectation is and doing it themselves. Ultimately it is on the systems that need to change. It's not just on women to keep adapting to those systems and being more this or being more that. So yes, I do think the onus is partly on them, and partly on government to set those standards. As I said in The Hill Times, there was a massive investment summit. If you looked at the attendees or who they invited, there was very little diversity. I think there are very important perspectives that are missing from those conversations.
