Exploring Women’s Leadership in CEO Appointments: A Qualitative Study of Board Member Perspectives in Iceland’s Listed Companies

Abstract

Despite Iceland’s advancements in gender equality, a stark disparity persists in the corporate leadership landscape. Only 21% of CEOs in Iceland are women, with a higher concentration of female CEOs in smaller companies. Among the 28 listed companies on Nasdaq Iceland, only four women serve as CEOs, or 14.3% compared to 24 men. This study critically examines the role of women board members in evaluating leadership skills during the CEO selection process and investigates the systemic barriers that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in these pivotal roles. Through qualitative research involving in-depth interviews with 22 women from the boards of all listed companies in Iceland, the study employs grounded theory to uncover how entrenched gender stereotypes and outdated leadership paradigms significantly bias board decisions. It also identifies the dominant attitudes of male board members as a key factor that further impedes women’s ascension to CEO positions. The findings highlight an urgent need for transformative changes in how boards evaluate and hire CEOs. The study advocates for policy reforms, including rigorous training for board members to combat gender bias and the implementation of transparent, inclusive criteria for CEO selection that prioritize a diverse array of leadership skills. These measures are essential for dismantling the barriers that prevent women from rising to top executive roles and for fostering a more equitable corporate environment.

Plain language summary

This study critically examines the role of women board members in evaluating leadership skills during the CEO selection process and investigates the systemic barriers that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in these pivotal roles. Through qualitative research involving in-depth interviews with 22 women from the boards of all listed companies in Iceland, the study employs grounded theory to uncover how entrenched gender stereotypes and outdated leadership paradigms significantly bias board decisions. It also identifies the dominant attitudes of male board members as a key factor that further impedes women’s ascension to CEO positions. The findings highlight an urgent need for transformative changes in how boards evaluate and hire CEOs. The study advocates for policy reforms, including rigorous training for board members to combat gender bias and the implementation of transparent, inclusive criteria for CEO selection that prioritize a diverse array of leadership skills.

Introduction

The field of leadership studies has evolved from a perspective where effective leadership was tied to a uniform set of skills, often stereotypically masculine traits like strategic firmness and dominance, to a broader understanding that values diverse knowledge, competencies, and communication—traits often seen as feminine (Blanchard, 2019; Carlyle, 1841; Collins, 2001; Day et al., 2014; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Gómez-Leal et al., 2021; Harter, 2003; Vial & Napier, 2018).

This qualitative study aims to deepen our understanding of how women’s abilities to succeed as CEOs are assessed, particularly focusing on the experiences and viewpoints of women board members in Iceland’s listed companies. The major contribution of this study is its comprehensive exploration of how women board members perceive and evaluate women’s leadership skills in the CEO selection process, uncovering the persistence of outdated stereotypes and male-dominated attitudes that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in CEO roles, despite legal, and societal strides toward gender equality.

This research offers a novel perspective by examining the paradox between Iceland’s global leadership in gender equality and the persistent underrepresentation of women in CEO roles in listed companies. By using grounded theory to derive insights from the experiences of women board members, this study departs from previous research that primarily relied on quantitative metrics.

The findings from this study provide actionable insights for boards of directors and policymakers to enhance the transparency and fairness of the CEO selection process, inform the development of training and empowerment programs for women to navigate systemic biases, and guide future legal and organizational reforms aimed at enhancing gender diversity in corporate leadership.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: The background section provides an overview of the current state of gender equality in Iceland, particularly in the context of corporate leadership, and reviews existing literature on the evaluation of leadership skills from a gender perspective. The methodology section describes the qualitative approach, including the selection of participants and the data collection process through in-depth interviews. The findings section presents the analysis of the interviews, highlighting key themes related to the evaluation of women’s leadership skills and the barriers they face in CEO appointments. Finally, the discussion section interprets these findings in the context of existing literature, and the conclusion section summarizes the study’s contributions and suggests directions for future research and policy implications.

Background

Iceland leads the World Economic Forum (WEF, 2024) Gender Gap Index, having closed 93.5% of the gender gap, while the world average is 68.6%. Iceland’s highest score is in Educational attainment (99.2%) and second strongest in Health and survival (96.2%). Only 12 countries out of 146 have closed more than 50% of the gap in Political empowerment, with Iceland being the highest, 97.2%.

In terms of Economic participation and opportunity, the gender gap is 81.5% Full parity remains in the participation of professional and technical workers. Despite this progress, Iceland ranks 44th on the World Economic Forum’s list for gender equality in legislators, senior, and managerial roles, with the lowest score being 65.6% (WEF, 2024).

Labor market participation is among the highest within the OECD; for women, it is 74%, and for men 79.7% (Statistics Iceland, 2024a). The number of women attending university has been rising in the past decades and in 2024 women represented 67.8 of those graduating from university (Statistics Iceland, 2024b).

In the year 2010, the Althing enacted legislation mandating gender quotas for corporate boards, necessitating a minimum of 40% representation from each gender. The implementation of this law occurred in 2013 and is applicable to various entities, including pension funds, limited companies, private limited companies, limited partnerships, and public limited companies with an annual workforce exceeding 50 employees (Act no. 13/2010). The repercussions of this legal framework on board gender composition were notably significant, as evidenced immediately following its passage in 2010 (European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE], 2019). As seen in Figure 1, women’s share of board seats in listed companies rose from 13.8% to 42.9%, and of CEO positions from 0% to 11.1% during the same period. Women who serve as chairpersons of the board have increased from 4.5% in 2007 to 11.1% in 2024 (GemmaQ, 2024).

Figure 1.

Development of women in key leadership roles on Nasdaq Iceland (%) 2007–2024.

Despite the progressive steps outlined above, only a few women are at the helm of large companies in Iceland. The shift in the proportion of female CEOs across all companies has shown remarkable resistance to change. Notably, spanning the period from 2016 to 2021, no woman held the position of CEO in any listed company. In 2021, Íslandsbanki was listed on Nasdaq Iceland, marking the first time in 5 years that a woman led a listed company. The year 2022 marked a historic moment, breaking a 17-year streak, as the first woman was appointed as CEO of a listed company. Since the commencement of stock trading in Iceland in 1990, numerous men have assumed the role of CEO in listed companies, contrasting starkly with the limited count of seven women who have held this position (Óladóttir, 2022). The anticipated spill-over effect of the gender quota legislation on CEO positions and the executive level has materialized neither in Iceland (Christiansen & Óladóttir, 2022) nor in Norway (Halrynjo & Teigen, 2024).

Leadership Linked to Corporate Success

CEOs and their leadership skills are critical to corporate success and financial performance (Chadwick & Dawson, 2018; Collins, 2001). For this study, effective leadership is understood as the characteristics, skills, behavior, and self-leadership, all aimed at successfully meeting the challenges and priorities of the 21st century. Accordingly, a focus on collective, team, ethical, servant, and authentic leadership is considered useful (Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2019). Leadership success is based on constant learning of a leader and the development and practice of diverse competencies for strategy formation and communication (Benmira & Agboola, 2021; Day et al., 2014). Moreover, effective leadership is viewed as comprising professional firmness and communication skills for motivation and influence (Amedu & Dulewicz, 2018; Chadwick & Dawson, 2018). Effective leaders can communicate their insights and knowledge, adapt to different circumstances, and harness their team’s communal abilities (Blanchard, 2019; Drucker, 1999). Emotional intelligence, based on self-awareness, self-management, understanding, and empathy, can develop trust and lead to corporate success (Goleman, 2013; Gómez-Leal et al., 2021). A humble approach, along with transformative, ethical, honest, and serving leadership, is a further success factor (Hoch et al., 2016), particularly when characterized by both empathy and firm principles (Eva et al., 2019), thereby integrating the formal and informal qualities of leadership (Pearce et al., 2019).

Trust is an important indicator of effective leadership (Den Hartog, 2018) and a strong mediator of leadership outcomes. In their meta-analytic review of 185 independent studies, Legood et al. (2021) showed how trust mediates the link between leadership and corporate performance and between leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. The meta-analysis also showed that contemporary pro-follower leadership and moral approaches strongly predict trust in leaders, in particular ethical and servant leadership with a focus on other orientations, fairness, humility, and delegation of responsibility.

Landmark research by Collins (2001), focusing on approximately 1,500 outstanding companies, identified the leadership attributes of effective CEOs who are characterized by personal humility and professional will, and how their ambition is first and foremost for the organization, not themselves. Collins (2001) findings have been supported by recent research, showing how a leader’s personal humility, determination, and communication skills are critical for corporate success (Giolito et al., 2020; Ou et al., 2018). Being a skillful leader involves the ability to combine the informal and soft qualities of leadership, marked by emotional intelligence, humility, adaptability, and support, with the hard aspect, characterized by indomitable will, purpose and accountability (Eva et al., 2019; Forman et al., 2020; Giolito et al., 2020; McGuire et al., 2020; Pearce et al., 2019; Petridou & Zahariadis, 2021).

Leaders who succeed can apply diverse leadership styles (Amiri et al., 2020), be flexible, and respond to the needs of colleagues and customers (Sandstrom & Reynolds, 2020). They meet challenges, for example, of the fourth industrial revolution, thus promoting change, aided by the understanding and abilities of a diverse group of people (Alade & Windapo, 2020). Furthermore, during times of change or crisis, leaders need to be flexible and adaptable (Petridou & Zahariadis, 2021). It is crucial for them to foster cooperation and consensus among team members, as well as demonstrate foresight and accountability (Forman et al., 2020; McGuire et al., 2020; Veil et al., 2020). These skills are essential for navigating challenging situations successfully.

While some aspects of successful leadership have been linked to stereotypically masculine qualities, such as social skills, initiative, and persuasiveness, no gender difference has been identified as regards credibility, determination, and risk-taking (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Feminine leadership traits are characterized by communal and social skills, a democratic and adaptive leadership style, rewarding superior performance, and combining firmness and support (Amiri et al., 2020; Eagly et al., 2003; Pearce et al., 2019).

Recent research emphasizes how women’s use of emotions can lead to successful leadership (Singh et al., 2023). Studies have shown that women have higher emotional intelligence than men (Gourzoulidis et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2023) and more communal traits, which are preferred during crisis (Eichenauer et al., 2021). Women’s rise to leadership positions in organizations has shown positive effects on factors like corporate and financial performance (Chadwick & Dawson, 2018), and corporate social responsibility and performance (Cook & Glass, 2017; Yarram & Adapa, 2021). The fight against the COVID-19 pandemic has been marked by better results where women are national leaders (Garikipati & Kambhampati, 2021) and in those states of the US where women are governors; they were more likely than male governors to convey feelings of empathy and safety to the public (Sergent & Stajkovic, 2020).

Women’s Abilities to Handle High-Profile Leadership Positions

The debate around differentiating between women’s and men’s leadership skills has been ongoing for decades. In 1990, Eagly and Johnson presented a meta-analysis showing that the stereotypic expectations of different leadership styles were largely unfounded, although women tended to adopt a more democratic leadership style than men. Numerous studies, such as Vecchio (2002), have since indicated that gender differences in leadership effectiveness are insignificant, and the focus has shifted more toward examining the role of context and the influence of societal stereotypes on the perception of leadership skills (Eagly & Karau, 2002).

In an effort to address the debate and assess gender differences, Paustian-Underdahl et al. (2014) presented another meta-analysis, focusing on perceptions of leadership effectiveness and the role of context. When comparing self-assessment of leadership skills to assessments made by others, no difference emerges between men and women (Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2016). However, when it comes to assessing leadership skills, women are rated significantly higher by others than men (Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014). Women underestimate how they are seen by others, but men do not. This underestimation among women, which does not reflect their actual leadership performance, can limit their advancement in the organization (Taylor et al., 2016). Moreover, Larsson and Alvinius (2020) discovered that women rate their leadership skills lower in male-dominated work environments than in female-dominated or gender-mixed work environments. However, when women do highlight their skills and competencies, they are evaluated as less likable and are less likely to be offered leadership positions (Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2016), but the same does not apply to males. Women’s determination is exclusively linked to negative consequences when it is straightforward and formal, but this is not the case when it is informal, for example through physical communication (Williams & Tiedens, 2016).

Stereotypes of effective leadership have traditionally emphasized masculine traits, such as determination and effectiveness, whereas feminine qualities such as social relationships are considered desirable, but not important (Vial & Napier, 2018). The assessment of leadership proficiency is often influenced by stereotypes and how well individuals conform to the values and standards of their group (Hoyt & Chemers, 2008). Gender stereotypes have a significant impact on how women’s leadership skills are assessed, which can explain why a competent woman is less likely to be promoted to a top-level position than a man with the same abilities (Heilman, 2001; Tabassum & Nayak, 2021). The leader stereotype leans more toward the male norm and masculine culture while a feminine image does not reflect expectations of leadership ability (Koenig et al., 2011; van Den Brink et al., 2016). A masculine stereotype prejudices women and may prevent a woman with good leadership qualities from being considered a competent leader (Bongiorno et al., 2014).

As stated by Vial and Napier (2018), the reason behind the lack of women in positions of leadership can be found in the emphasis on stereotypically masculine attributes in leaders. They found that both women and men value agentic traits over communal traits for successful leadership. However, women rated leaders with communal traits higher than men did. Moreover, Bongiorno et al. (2014) found that women who do not demonstrate agentic traits are disapproved of, and communal traits have negative effects on leadership assessment (Badura et al., 2018). Conversely, the findings of Mohan et al. (2022) showed that men rated female leaders displaying agentic traits more negatively than male leaders doing the same.

Recruitment and appraisal processes are gendered and treat women and men differently (van Den Brink et al., 2016). Women candidates are evaluated less favorably than men and rated differently for the same behavior (Denise, 2020; Friedmann & Efrat-Treister, 2023; Koch et al., 2015). Holgersson (2012) interviewed board chairmen about the CEO recruitment process and found that during the process the requirements were redefined to motivate male candidates’ recruitment, thus excluding women. Such gender bias and stereotypes affect leadership evaluations and can increase the risk of discrimination in the appraisal of performance, promotion, and recruitment (Denise, 2020). Regarding promotions the standards are stricter toward women (Lyness & Heilman, 2006), and women’s appraisal is often different than men’s (Heilman & Haynes, 2005). Women receive feedback of lower quality than men, leading to a disadvantage for women’s advancement into leadership positions (Bear et al., 2017) and fewer growth opportunities (Doldor et al., 2021).

According to Women in the Workplace 2022, women are leaving leadership positions at a higher rate than men, 43% versus 31%, and for every woman who gets a promotion, two women step down (Krivkovich et al., 2022). A study involving over 16,1000 participants in 22 OECD countries found a clear positive relationship between the level of gender equality in each country and the likelihood that attitudes in the country are favorable toward women’s CEO qualifications (van Mensvoort et al., 2021). Men were overall less likely than women to believe that women could be successful CEOs, and even less so with increased age and lower levels of education. Individuals employed on the market are less likely to support women CEOs and men in management roles are less likely to be supportive of gender equality in corporate leadership than men outside managerial circles (van Mensvoort et al., 2021).

Recent research on CEO appointments in listed companies in Iceland indicates that professional procedures are lacking in the CEO recruitment process (Christiansen et al., 2021; Óladóttir et al., 2021). Icelandic women business leaders are critical of the appointment process and point out that various barriers, such as male cliques, women’s low self-esteem, and stereotypes, exclude women from being recruited as CEOs (Óladóttir et al., 2021). Women board members experience exclusion from decision-making and perceive the male board members rely too heavily on their personal networks in CEO selection (Christiansen et al., 2021).

Women’s experiences of exclusion and men’s overreliance on networks are reflected in Bourdieu’s (1990) framework demonstrating how the capital (micro), habitus (meso), and field (macro) contribute to leadership development, and thus explaining the lack of women in top leadership positions (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2020). Leadership development involves a continuous cycle of diverse acquired and exchanged capital and is a nonlinear process due to the varying value and timeframe of the capital (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2020; Paccoud et al., 2020). This framework explains that in every field, there are powerful dominating rule makers who only secure access for those who have valuable capital and similar experiences (habitus) as themselves. Considering the corporate world, male CEOs possess the dominant habitus (Fitzsimmons et al., 2014). Individuals lacking capital considered valuable to the dominant class, or the elite, are less likely to gain access and opportunities to develop additional capital, leading to a continuous cycle of exclusion (Alecu et al., 2022; Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2020).

The CEO plays a key role as a representative of the organization to external stakeholders (Dewar et al., 2019) and has a major impact on the organizational performance, outcomes, and operations (Melis & Nawaz, 2023; Wang et al., 2016). CEOs are supposed to have gained, through experiences in the industry, the attributes of exceptional leaders, strategists, and firm stewardship. They are also required to be intellectual, authentic, resilient, honest, and self-aware (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016). The selection process of top leaders remains uncharted territory (Vinkenburg et al., 2013), and CEO selections are distinct from other levels of the firm (Fitzsimmons et al., 2014). To ensure a successful leader selection process, standardized recruitment and training processes are essential to foster diversity and inclusion (Holladay et al., 2023).

Method

This study is part of a larger research project exploring women board members’ experiences of the process of CEO appointments in listed companies in Iceland. The study aims to enhance understanding of the experiences of women board members and how they perceive the evaluation of women’s leadership skills and competencies to become CEOs in the recruitment process. Qualitative approach such as grounded theory is appropriate as it offers the advantage of flexibility and adjustments based on emerging findings (Creswell, 2013). Semi-structured in-depth interviews, to explore the topic from the perspectives and experiences of participants regarding processes, decisions, and barriers in the context of recruitment (Esterberg, 2002; Holloway & Schwartz, 2018).

Earlier research highlighted the role of women board members in the CEO appointment process at listed companies (Óladóttir et al., 2019). As of June 2020, the market featured a roster of 19 listed companies, collectively comprising 45 women serving on their boards. Through purposive sampling, women who were on boards of all listed companies in Icelandic stock market in spring 2020 and had direct experience with the task concerned were invited to participate (Holloway & Schwartz, 2018). All the 22 women who were approached were eager to participate and accepted the offer. Thus, participation was reached from the boards of all listed companies and from more than half of all women on the boards.

Interviews were held with 22 of those women, who served on the boards of all the aforementioned companies. These participants brought a wealth of board experience, ranging up to three decades, with an average tenure of 4.5 years. They also shared a common background of having served on audit and remuneration committees. Ranging in age from 38 to 69, all participants held university degrees or advanced education, 13 had degrees in business administration or economics, seven in law, two in engineering.

Before the interviews, participants received information about the research objectives, anonymity, and confidentiality. The interview framework contained questions on their experience of the CEO recruitment process, the criteria used for selecting CEOs, and the evaluation of women’s leadership skills and competencies. Follow-up questions were used to obtain detailed descriptions and experiential narratives. Interviews were carried out using Microsoft Teams during the months of June and July 2020, spanning a duration of 60 to 130 min. The strength of using semi-structured interview questions is that the respondents are not restricted by the (unintentional) perspective of the researcher and it gives the possibility of novel findings—thus limiting bias. Comprehensive recordings were made and transcribed verbatim, securely housed within the researchers’ restricted computer systems. After processing, the records were systematically expunged. To ensure the participants’ anonymity, they are referred to by pseudonyms in the findings. Anonymity protects the respondents and organizations and allows them to speak freely about any potentially confidential or sensitive information. This is especially important because of the relatively small size of the study population. The interviews were divided among the researchers and they read and re-read the transcripts separately and together to identify key themes.

Data analysis began alongside data gathering. The interviews were coded according to the research objectives and research question. We employed open coding, wherein the interviews were read line by line to identify in vivo codes. We took notes on items that were repeatedly mentioned and a term describing those items. The interviews were then re-read and coded with the concepts. The concepts were then examined, compared, and linked in themes. Targeted coding was employed to search for indications of an idea or concept that could help develop a clearer picture of the main findings. Constant comparison was used simultaneously to deepen the understanding of the data, followed by axial coding to determine links or overlaps between themes (Strauss & Corbin, 2015). We ensured consistency in coding and maintained methodological rigor to enhance reliability of the research. All the authors work full time in academia and have extensive research experience in conducting qualitative research and securing confidentiality when working with sensitive data. Reliability in qualitative studies prioritizes consistency over precise replication and entails maintaining consistency across data collection, analysis, and interpretation, reinforced by methodological transparency and reflective approaches (Leung, 2015). Considering the diverse nature and experiences of individuals in this study, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate that some findings may hold relevance beyond the original context and be transferable to other organizational settings Carcary, 2009).

Findings

The analysis identified two key themes: the evaluation of women’s leadership skills in the CEO selection process and the influence of stereotypically masculine communication styles and prior CEO experience as primary selection criteria.

Evaluation of Women’s Leadership Skills

The interviews highlighted a differential assessment of leadership skills between male and female candidates for CEO roles. Board decision-makers often view women’s humble yet determined approach as less suitable for the CEO role. Participants noted that female candidates are frequently more competent than their male counterparts. Dóra remarked, “I simply did not believe this until I saw it, in many instances the women were much better qualified than the men who were applying.” Edda added that women often possess the needed abilities, stating, “I think people generally realize that women are equally capable leaders as men, and even often better, I think, because we have more emotional intelligence, you see … and ultimately it is all about emotions.” Despite recognizing women’s leadership skills, the tendency to appoint men remains, leading to disappointment. Eva highlighted, “…the woman is often much better qualified than many of the men chosen for the position.”

Male candidates tend to self-promote more aggressively, as Tinna observed: “Somehow the problem is how the men speak of their own competencies versus those of the women. … they are perhaps more prone to highlight their own achievements to advertise themselves.” Nína noted that men apply even if underqualified: “Because the men apply even though they only tick one box, while the women … sometimes we see this perfectionism.” She further explained, “We may judge ourselves harder than the guys. … I think it relates to both a certain insecurity and simply a will to do well. … We somehow need to know everything very well before we apply for something and be sure we tick all the boxes, which anyone seldom does.”

Women’s humility is not valued in the selection process, and attempts by women to self-promote are often met with skepticism. Edda explained, “If the women try to promote themselves, they are likely to be stigmatized as talking nonsense – and much more so than when the guys talk nonsense.” Eva observed that decision-makers are more hesitant to give women opportunities, often due to unconscious bias: “We are somehow more hesitant to give women a chance … we are definitely harsher when judging women … just an unconscious bias. An aggressive man is just tough and very cool, and an aggressive woman is just weird, some bitch. She is expected to be super smart, an extremely good leader, and enormously motherly as well, … charming but not too charming.” This suggests that overstating qualities is more effective for male candidates, as Eva noted:

To put it simply, we are often more restrained when selling ourselves … when I listen to … less experienced guys who have only been in supporting roles, lacking in management experience, when they stage some kind of McKinsey sales pitch.

Despite women’s abilities, men’s attitudes significantly affect decisions, with Helen stating, “Older men regard women as inadequate.” Edda agreed, indicating that this bias might be instinctual:

You perceive that in some cases it is more of an instinct, rather than a deliberate opinion, they just, somehow, trust a man better in such important positions. But I do not feel … that this is obviously intentional; it has more to do with something relating to circumstances and it is more common among older men, I think; they are more likely to trust men.

Astrid emphasized the need for more professional dialog on CEO competencies and selection, stressing the importance of articulating the CEO role from a professional perspective and defining leadership competence, criteria, and selection methods strategically and transparently. Sara pointed out the board’s responsibility: “Those sitting on the boards need to act, to think about how we can change this. … Because the boards appoint the CEO, and they seem to trust a man better in such important positions.”

The interviews revealed that both genders have essential leadership qualities, such as communication skills, task allocation, team motivation, professional development encouragement, flexibility, and vision formulation. Beta elaborated, “It is being able to act as a spokesperson, both internally and externally, and having the skill to develop an effective team, just to be able to tune the engine so that it works. … This has to do with abilities, trained skills, other experiences, and interests, and I see no distinction between the genders in this regard.”

However, boards often overlook women’s humility, focusing instead on men’s tendency to exaggerate their qualifications. Hilda explained, “It’s about the impression you get of the individual in the interview. … When it comes to presentations and information about their own qualities, women are just humbler than men. … There is always this doubt, but when you ask a man: Do you have management experience? … then it was perhaps a job when they were teenagers, 10 years earlier; they do not hesitate to talk about and exaggerate their own qualities.”

A Masculine Communication Style and Prior CEO Experience

Participants identified prior CEO experience as a critical selection criterion, noting that male candidates are often perceived as more experienced, presenting a significant barrier for women. Edda stated, “Frequently the focus is on whether the candidate has held a CEO position before and then naturally there are so few women…” The importance of CEO experience often involves readiness to handle complex situations and make necessary changes. Dóra described the need for a CEO “who could be ready to take the initiative, especially because the executive team is very homogeneous … it would have to be someone who had the experience to handle some restructuring of the in-house power structure.”

The predominantly male power structures in organizations suggest that only a man could effect the required changes. Edda highlighted doubts about women’s competence in tough decisions: “Having had the experience of leading a company would really help… then they would have had the experience of having to take on these issues, having lots of subordinates, having to make harsh and unpopular decisions.” María reflected similar doubts about women’s strength: “When the candidate is a woman, somehow her strength is always doubted. Whether she can handle things.” Hilda noted the ineffectiveness of humility in these roles, stating:

In this situation you cannot be a person of humility, it just won’t be effective … When you are applying for the position of CEO you know you can do everything, you know you can equal a man in all respects and when you apply for positions of this kind you simply know this yourself … you are not suffering from an inferiority complex once you are in this situation.

Investor perceptions also influence the selection process, with participants feeling that investors prefer male CEOs. Viktoría mentioned, “We discussed what investors would say about this … and decided that this would be best for the firm.” When discussing male candidates, Hilda noted, “He is a sure bet for the investor because of the market analysts, you see. He knows how to talk to them.” This suggests a perceived risk in selecting a woman for the CEO role due to assumptions about her communication skills with investors.

When discussing CEO interactions with the board, similar concerns arose. Beta justified choosing a man due to investor expectations: “Very large and powerful new investors came onto the board … and I did not want to hire just anyone to work with them … these are people who have a certain reputation and are extremely strategic and focused on financial outcomes.” Dóra added that a woman CEO would have faced more confrontation: “definitely would have been more confrontational.” The boards’ decisions often reflect their insecurities rather than candidates’ skills, as Beta explained:

The normal framework for a role like this is knowledge and understanding of managing the day-to-day operations, forming and implementing a strategy, and emphasizing leadership competencies, rather than the kinds of issues that the board often gets hung up on because the board is insecure on certain issues, like wanting the CEO also to be kind of a CFO.

In assessing prior CEO experience, the ability to master a masculine communication style and navigate male-oriented power structures seems more critical than actual leadership qualities.

Discussion

The study offers new insights into the evaluation of women’s leadership skills and competencies for CEO positions in listed companies, from the perspective of women board members. The findings indicate that requirements for leadership skills and how to present one’s qualities for CEO positions reflect a strong preference for men’s self-promotion rather than women’s more reserved approach. These findings reflect that boards rely on outdated notions of effective leaders (Koenig et al., 2011), which were not suggested in earlier research on selections of CEOs in listed companies.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that the criteria for leadership skills influencing CEO appointments in listed companies in Iceland deviate from the most recent insights in the field of leadership studies regarding the concept of leadership skills. The field defines effective leadership as the ability to focus on others, based on humility and emphasis on motivating, informing, developing trust, and harnessing the potential of diverse teams and leading them to excel (Alade & Windapo, 2020; Amiri et al., 2020; Eva et al., 2019; Gómez-Leal et al., 2021; Legood et al., 2021; Ou et al., 2018; Sandstrom & Reynolds, 2020).

Particularly noteworthy, is the lack of recognition for the skill of integrating professional determination and personal humility as a catalyst for achieving success (Collins, 2001; Ou et al., 2018). A skill that is crucial for leaders to be able to integrate formal authority with an empowering and cooperative leadership style (Pearce et al., 2019), and more likely to be developed by women than men (Eagly et al., 2003; Garikipati & Kambhampati, 2021). Thus CEO appointments in Iceland appear to be based on a somewhat conservative concept of gender and leadership skills (Carlyle, 1841/2013; Harter, 2003), which increases the likelihood of overlooking competent individuals who are well-qualified to lead their companies to success through a firm approach combined with personal humility (Collins, 2001; Hoch et al., 2016) ensuring corporate success and financial benefit (Amedu & Dulewicz, 2018; Giolito et al., 2020).

The findings illuminate how perspectives forming the basis for CEO appointments reflect a culture where gender equality still has a long way to go and where men are generally seen as more able than women when it comes to corporate leadership (van Mensvoort et al., 2021). Those findings are inconsistent with the perspectives expected to characterize equal rights in Iceland, as demonstrated by the increased education of women and women’s significant participation in employment (Statistics Iceland, 2024a), and being the world’s most gender-equal nation (WEF, 2024). The perspectives and evaluation of those who make decisions regarding the appointments of CEOs in listed companies in Iceland appear more in step with dominant attitudes in countries that do not represent equal opportunities, where women’s participation in employment is low and few women have found their way to corporate leadership positions (van Mensvoort et al., 2021).

The findings indicate, furthermore, that contradictory demands are placed upon women because of male-dominant attitudes based on deep-rooted stereotypes, thus demonstrating a lack of success in the battle for full gender equality in Iceland. Successful candidates are expected to demonstrate inflated self-confidence and exaggerate their skills and achievements, while at the same time, it is considered unseemly when women speak highly of themselves. Here, a clear contradiction appears; strong and confident performance is demanded, but at the same time, the point is made that a woman exhibiting strong self-confidence is not well received. These findings underscore those of Bongiorno et al. (2014) and Paustian-Underdahl et al. (2014).

Findings that women’s humility is not viewed as a positive attribute for being appointed CEO are inconsistent with the results of recent research on the traits of effective leaders (Eva et al., 2019; Ou et al., 2018) which reveal that humility accompanied by ambition and professional will are characteristics leading to corporate success and financial benefits (Amedu & Dulewicz, 2018; Collins, 2001; Giolito et al., 2020). Earlier research is not known to have elucidated this discrepancy. The findings show that although women have the educational qualifications for the position of CEO and are considered eligible for leadership, few women are found on the shortlist of candidates. This provides an interesting insight into possible explanations as to why so few qualified women are appointed to CEO positions in Iceland and, apart from the causes already discussed, men’s strong influence on corporate boards is a crucial factor. The participants agreed that women are generally seen as qualified leaders and have the education required for the CEO position, but they tend to be reserved regarding their own abilities, whereas men are likely to overestimate their own competence. Women often demand more of themselves, compared to men, and emphasize fulfilling all requirements, whereas men are likely to boast of their achievements, even though they fall short of the requirements. Those findings are in line with the experience of German women in corporate managerial positions; they often perceive the need to possess all the qualifications sought by the company, and they are less inclined than men to actively promote themselves in the market (Greguletz et al., 2019).

The study shows that when appointing CEOs in publicly traded companies, more value is placed on male capital and habitus (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2020), men’s self-promotion rather than women’s reserved approach. This is in step with results by Greguletz et al. (2019) that the approaches to self-promotion are different between men and women, also indicating that stereotypically masculine traits, rather than feminine, are considered effective leadership skills (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Vial & Napier, 2018). The findings also shed light on the fact that the perspective of whether an individual can be a successful leader rests on stereotypes as well as whether the individual’s attitudes reflect the traditions and values of the decision-makers (Hoyt & Chemers, 2008). The findings imply that a masculine stereotype regarding leadership skills (Koenig et al., 2011) influences the selection of CEOs in listed companies in Iceland and that a feminine stereotype is not aligned with the expectations of decision-makers. In short, a masculine stereotype focuses on determination and influence, whereas social abilities are seen as most akin to women’s leadership skills (Vial & Napier, 2018). Previous research (Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014; van Mensvoort et al., 2021) shows that decisions based on masculine stereotypes are associated with prejudice against women and can thus prevent a woman with positive leadership skills from being considered acceptable. Those prejudices are considered one explanation for the lower likelihood of women being chosen and assessed as qualified leaders since they do not convey the required firmness and confidence as compared to men. The findings also suggest that the women board members are unable to become agents of change for gender equality (Stainback et al., 2016); the boards of listed companies rarely appoint women as CEOs, and their priorities and perspectives reflect a disregard for anyone who demonstrates leadership skills that do not fit the traditional masculine traits (Bongiorno et al., 2014).

Conclusion, Contribution, and Implication

This research sheds light on how women on the boards of listed companies experienced the evaluation of women’s leadership skills and competencies during the CEO selection process. The findings illuminate how feminine traits are underrated and masculine traits are overrated as suitable for leadership positions and these evaluations are not founded on the present state of knowledge regarding effective leadership qualifications. These findings highlight the impact of stereotypes, encompassing perceptions of women’s competencies and roles, as well as outdated notions about effective leadership. These findings are incongruent with the broader context of gender equality in Iceland. Basing CEO appointments in listed companies on such perspectives may lead to the inadvertent oversight of qualified individuals—both men and women—with substantial potential to lead the companies to success.

The research comprises both strengths and weaknesses. The main weakness is also a strength. The weakness is a limited number of participants and thus it is not possible to generalize the findings, whereas the strength lies in the research method where the research topic is examined in-depth based on the perspectives of the participants who are board members in listed companies. Further research is needed to elicit the perspectives of men who are board members in listed companies, how they experience the recruitment process, and what measures are feasible to remedy the persistent gender gap in CEO positions in listed companies in Iceland.

The theoretical contribution of this study lies in its detailed exploration of how female board members perceive and evaluate women’s leadership competencies during the CEO selection process. It highlights the enduring presence of antiquated stereotypes and male-dominated attitudes, which are key factors in the continued underrepresentation of women in CEO roles, despite advancements in legal and societal gender equality. It provides an important explanatory mechanism for why the introduction of board gender quota, and the subsequent achievement of gender parity in the boardroom, has not had the anticipated spill-over effect on the hiring of women in CEO and executive level positions (Christiansen & Óladóttir, 2022; Halrynjo & Teigen, 2024). According to our findings, the women who have taken seats on the boards in Icelandic listed companies assess women’s leadership competencies against the same outdated criteria as the male board members do.

From a practical standpoint, considering the strong impact of deep-rooted stereotypes in the CEO selection process of listed companies, it is evident that there is a need to highlight women’s leadership abilities. Additionally, modernizing the perspectives and decision-making criteria of those responsible for appointing CEOs in listed companies is necessary, incorporating current knowledge from the field of leadership studies.