Business restructuring is not symbolic work. It is about solvency, capital preservation and survival, when companies enter distress, restructuring professionals operate at the intersection of liquidity crises, operational fragility and stakeholder conflict. The work is technical and high-pressure, capital modelling, creditor negotiation, strategic redesign, often executed under severe time constraints.
Which is why the conversation about women in restructuring must move beyond representation and toward system design.
The issue is not capability. Women have long been present in finance and advisory. The issue is how opportunity is allocated. On headline measures, South Africa performs well. BDO’s Women in Business report shows women hold roughly 47% of senior management positions locally, among the highest globally. Board representation is similarly strong: women occupy approximately 38% of JSE-listed board seats, with executive committee representation closer to 31%.
But ultimate authority tells a different story. CEO roles across major listed entities remain overwhelmingly male. Women are underrepresented in core Profit & Loss leadership and in complex turnaround mandates, the assignments that build reputational capital and succession credibility.
Globally, the pattern persists. The UK has surpassed 40% female board representation across the FTSE 350, yet female CEOs remain in the low teens. The entry pipeline is healthy. The progression architecture is not.
McKinsey’s research on the “broken rung” highlights that women are promoted at lower rates than men at the first critical management step. Each subsequent promotion compounds that early imbalance. If women represent nearly half of senior management but only a third of executive leadership, something in the design of advancement is filtering them out. This is not a supply problem. It is structural.
South Africa’s low-growth environment amplifies the stakes. Corporate distress remains elevated amid fiscal pressure and operational instability. The quality of restructuring decisions affects employment, creditor recoveries and capital efficiency, these are systemic economic issues, not internal HR concerns.
International research, including studies from the IMF and Credit Suisse, has linked gender-diverse leadership to stronger governance and improved risk oversight. While correlation is not causation, the evidence that diversity strengthens decision-making robustness is substantial. In distressed environments, where groupthink can carry material cost, diversity of perspective is a risk-mitigation asset. Leadership composition, therefore, is not symbolic. It is strategic.
Most senior women can identify mentors who offered guidance. Far fewer can point to sustained sponsorship and the distinction matters enormously.
A mentor advises. A sponsor allocates opportunity. Sponsorship means recommending a woman for a complex mandate, backing her name in succession conversations, attaching institutional credibility to her advancement. In capital markets, backing determines access. Careers operate no differently. Without advocacy in the rooms where decisions are made, progression stalls, regardless of competence.
If firms are serious about leadership diversity, sponsorship must be embedded into leadership accountability, not left to individual discretion.
The “glass ceiling” metaphor suggests a barrier waiting to be shattered. But in corporate finance, durable change comes from redesign, not from force.
Restructuring professionals understand that flawed systems cannot be patched indefinitely. When governance frameworks no longer support viability, they are rebuilt. Leadership pipelines require the same discipline: transparent criteria for high-impact mandates; formal tracking of succession pipelines; measurable sponsorship accountability; public reporting on executive progression. Transformation that cannot be measured cannot be managed.
South Africa cannot afford symbolic transformation. In an economy under strain, every restructuring decision carries consequence namely jobs preserved or lost, capital recovered or destroyed, confidence restored or eroded. Leadership in that environment is not ceremonial. It is economic infrastructure.
Women already sit across board tables and executive committees in significant numbers. Yet when the most consequential mandates arise, the distressed asset, the turnaround, the high-risk Profit & Loss, authority remains disproportionately concentrated. If nearly half of senior management is female but ultimate executive power remains overwhelmingly male, the issue is not ambition. It is architecture.
Markets reward efficient allocation of capital. Institutions should be no less disciplined in allocating leadership opportunity.
The next decade will test South Africa’s corporate resilience. Growth will remain constrained. Capital will remain cautious. Governance scrutiny will intensify. In that environment, excluding capable leadership is not conservative, it is costly.
The question is no longer whether women can lead in complex financial environments. The question is whether corporate South Africa is prepared to redesign its systems, not to accommodate women, but to compete effectively in a demanding economy.
Because in the end, this is not about breaking ceilings. It is about building institutions strong enough to outlast them.
Written by Buhle Hanise National Head: Business Restructuring at BDO South Africa | Advisory Council Member, AWCA