Career barriers to the promotion of women in Switzerland

In Switzerland, fair promotion opportunities are often taken for granted – the best should rise to the top. However, the latest Gender Intelligence Report shows that women are less likely to be considered for management positions right from the start – especially in the public sector, consulting, banking and healthcare. The lack of equal opportunities not only costs companies talent, but also billions. We spoke to the author of the study, Dr. Ines Hartmann, about the causes and possible solutions. 

The recently published Gender Intelligence Report shows that women are systematically disadvantaged even at the first level of promotion. What are the specific reasons for this? A lack of objective criteria, unconscious bias or structural factors such as part-time work?

In fact, all of these factors probably play a role. Fair promotion opportunities for all employees are only possible if objective and measurable criteria for promotion are defined. These should be communicated in a transparent fashion throughout the company (examples: targets exceeded by at least two years, management of five major projects or excellent assessment of skills such as customer focus or communication skills). This makes candidates comparable and reduces the risk of subjective assessments or unconscious biases influencing decisions on promotions or participation in talent programmes.

Unfortunately, we see time and again that part-time work is a hurdle. Part-time employees are often – consciously or unconsciously – excluded from the promotion pool because it is assumed that they are not pursuing a career. Or the idea still prevails that a management position is only feasible with a 100 per cent or even 150 per cent workload. This affects both genders, but has a much greater impact on women, as they are still much more likely to work part-time.

According to SRF, women are massively underrepresented in hospital management, even though women make up a very high proportion of the healthcare sector. How can this be explained? And what measures could be taken to counteract this?

There are likely to be various reasons for this. One is certainly the widespread belief that senior positions in hospitals – especially in the medical profession – are only possible with 100% availability. In university hospitals in particular, research and teaching are often added to clinical work. In addition, promotion and appointment processes are not necessarily transparent and vary according to professional groups.

When filling senior positions in hospitals, as in expert organisations in general, professional expertise is the main focus. Leadership skills are considered secondary or are taken for granted. This puts people who work part-time at a disadvantage, as they have fewer opportunities to demonstrate their abilities, for example. In addition, there are only a few senior positions in hospitals overall. And therefore not too many opportunities for advancement. This contributes to hospitals losing women, who then move to private practices, for example.

One approach would be to create new job profiles, for example by separating technical expertise and personnel management. Or through interface functions with nursing. One example is clinical nurses, who relieve doctors at the beginning of their careers of administrative tasks so that they can concentrate more on their core activities. It would also be important to make the processes transparent and objective and to ensure that (appointment) committees are heterogeneous. Experience from other industries shows that such measures have positive effects. 

The study mentions losses of up to CHF 5 billion due to staff turnover. Nevertheless, the healthcare industry still underestimates issues such as equality. How do you explain this?

This could exist for several reasons. Hospitals are typical expert organisations where professional expertise is what counts above all else. Issues such as equality, diversity and inclusion, as well as the standardisation and “de-biasing” of personnel processes, are often not at the top of the priority list – partly because they are usually the responsibility of HR. And personnel departments are often perceived more as administrative and supportive rather than strategic partners.

At the same time, despite the shortage of staff in hospitals, the pressure does not seem to be great enough. Vacancies can often still be filled by immigration. And finally, it is a challenge to unite the different worlds within hospitals – each with their own personnel processes and cultures – and to set binding standards for all.  

You also talk about inclusive meritocracy. What does this mean in concrete terms? And how can companies implement this approach without it being perceived as a quota system through the back door?

Not through quotas, that's for sure. If personnel processes and decisions are as objective as possible and all candidates have the same opportunities, the best talent will actually be recruited or promoted, regardless of gender, age or origin. These are central aspects of “inclusive meritocracy”.

Inclusive meritocracy succeeds when processes are designed to largely eliminate unconscious bias. Unconscious bias refers to, for example, the tendency to evaluate people similar to us more positively or the unexamined attribution of assertiveness to men rather than women. Leaders must be aware of their biases in decision-making and strive to reduce them. An inclusive organization in terms of culture, structures, processes, and leadership understanding is a prerequisite for companies to become meritocratic. The aim of our study is to demonstrate that inclusion and meritocracy are not opposites – meritocracy requires inclusion.

Dr. Ines Hartmann is Director of the Competence Centre for Diversity, Disability and Inclusion (CCDI) at the Institute for International Management and Diversity Management at the University of St. Gallen (IIDM-HSG).

The Gender Intelligence Report 2025 by the University of St.Gallen and Advance is based on the analysis of 376,000 anonymised employee data from over 90 companies and an additional survey of over 600 employees in Switzerland. The report is available for download at: advance-hsg-report.ch       

Further information is also available at: diversity-inclusion-platform.ch