Gatekeepers in the shadows: A Bourdieuian analysis of executive recruiters and ethno-racial diversity of company boards

1. Introduction and overview

Waves of migration throughout the post-World War II period have shaped Australia’s ethno-racial diversity (Jupp, 1996). Today, approximately 30% of the population were born overseas, and around 50% have at least one parent born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021). As an ethno-racially diverse society, Australia has long maintained macro-level policy instruments such as the Race Discrimination Act (1975) and the Multicultural Policy (1978), which set expectations that race or ethnicity should not limit access to employment, goods, or services. However, these instruments have failed to guide workplace-level diversity and inclusion practices, particularly regarding ethno-racial representation (Groutsis et al., 2018; Taksa and Groutsis, 2010). This failure is evident in the continued absence of ethno-racial diversity across senior leadership in both the public and private sectors (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2016, 2018; Diversity Council Australia (DCA), 2015, 2017; Groutsis et al., 2026a). This study focuses specifically on exclusion from board positions within Australian companies, where ethno-racial diversity remains limited.

The continued homogeneity of boards is concerning, as they represent a powerful and influential voice in decision-making at the highest levels in corporate Australia (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2018: 5; see also 2016; Azmat and Rentschler, 2017; Buse et al., 2014; Carter et al., 2010; DCA, 2015, 2017; Erhardt et al., 2003; Groutsis, 2024; Groutsis et al., 2018; Khatib et al., 2021; Knyazeva et al., 2021). At the same time, a vast pool of talented individuals remains under-valued and underutilised. Evidence suggests that the pathway to board appointments continues to reflect a narrow demographic profile, signalling persistent structural barriers to ethno-racial diversity (Faulconbridge et al., 2009; Groutsis, 2024; Wright et al., 2024).

This study seeks to initiate a conversation about the lack of ethno-racial diversity on Australian boards. In the absence of mandated data collection on ethno-racial representation, there has been little systemic impetus and effort to build evidence or map existing diversity (D’Almada-Remedios et al., 2021; Groutsis, 2024; Groutsis et al., 2026b). This data gap is compounded by a lack of consensus on how to define, measure, and report on ethnoracial diversity at both the labour force and workplace levels (D’Almada-Remedios et al., 2021; Groutsis et al., 2018; Groutsis et al., 2026b). For the purpose of this study, we define ethno-racial diversity as encompassing some or all of the following characteristics: race, heritage, migrant background, country of origin, skin colour, physical appearance (including dress), name, accent, and period of settlement when residing outside of country of birth (D’Almada-Remedios et al., 2021; Farkas, 2017; Groutsis et al., 2018; Modood, 1994; OECD, 2020).

The ongoing exclusion of ethno-racial diversity on Australian boards raises important questions about the persistence of White dominance in influential institutions, which stands in stark contrast to the inclusive image projected by corporate Australia (Cooke et al., 2013; Liu, 2017; Tavan, 2005; Winterheller and Hirt, 2017; Wright et al., 2024). Among ASX-listed companies, as with their counterparts on the NYSE, NASDAQ, Euronext, or the London Stock Exchange, corporate artefacts such as glossy brochures, websites, and annual reports often depict multicultural imagery. These visual and discursive materials construct a narrative of diversity and inclusion, and assert a visible commitment to access and equity. Yet despite these symbolic gestures, Australian boards remain ethno-racially homogeneous (Wright et al., 2024). Understanding this disjuncture between diversity discourse and persistent exclusion requires attention to the actors and processes that shape board appointments.

Board access is mediated by a network of decision-makers who operate according to field-specific logics and norms (Baldo et al., 2022; McCool, 2008). These include board chairs, current directors, and notably, executive recruiters. Although executive recruiters often remain in the shadows of public scrutiny, they occupy a particularly influential position, with the potential to either foster greater diversity or reinforce the status quo (Baldo et al., 2022; Chanland and Murphy, 2018). Their role is multifaceted. At a formal level, they are contracted by client companies to identify suitable board candidates (Andersen, 2025; Georgakakis et al., 2021). To perform this role effectively, they maintain close relationships with existing board members and operate within the constraints of macro- and meso-level institutional arrangements, client expectations, talent supply, and their own strategic interests (Wright et al., 2024). For client companies, executive recruiters are instrumental in accessing particular pools of talent (Baldo et al., 2019; Coverdill and Finlay, 1998; Faulconbridge et al., 2009). Although their formal obligation is to serve the organisations that engage and compensate them, recruiters frequently act as both formal and informal intermediaries between companies and prospective candidates (Chanland and Murphy, 2018). Their influence extends to providing strategic advice, advocating for preferred candidates, facilitating mentoring relationships, and enhancing candidate visibility to incumbent board members (Baldo et al., 2019; Doldor et al., 2016). In doing so, they play a central role in shaping board composition (Andersen, 2025; Faulconbridge et al., 2009) and influencing board culture and strategic orientation (Chanland and Murphy, 2018; Pugliese et al., 2009; Rivera, 2012; Zenou et al., 2020).

These dynamics foreground our investigation. Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of practice, we conceptualise executive recruiters as social actors embedded in specific fields, constrained while also possessing the capacity to disrupt established power relations and as such reshape the field. Within this theoretical framing, this study asks: what role do executive recruiters play in facilitating or impeding ethno-racial diversity on Australian boards? By examining board recruitment from the recruiter’s perspective, we seek to understand how the deeply embedded social logics of the field contribute to the maintenance of ethno-racial homogeneity at the highest levels of corporate leadership in Australia. The article is set out as follows. We begin by presenting our theoretical framing, where we draw on Bourdieu’s relational approach to explain and understand the role of executive recruiters, followed by our method outlining our approach to building evidence. We then turn to a discussion before concluding and suggesting future research directions.

2. Board diversity and executive recruiters: A Bourdieuian approach

Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of practice provides a valuable lens for examining the social mechanisms that underpin ethno-racial exclusion in board recruitment. This framework connects individual agency with institutional structure by showcasing how taken-for-granted rules, vested interests, and power relations within a given field shape what is recognised as legitimate. This perspective is especially useful in contexts where organisational practices are opaque and lack standardisation. In the case of board appointments, where there are few formal procedures to allow for accountability, transparency, or scrutiny, Bourdieu’s theory enables a deeper analysis of how informal norms and embedded logics influence decisions about who is considered suitable for leadership and who is excluded.

Bourdieu’s theoretical framework has attracted growing attention in work and management research (Tatli et al., 2015). It has been particularly useful in advancing understanding of ethno-racial diversity across a range of topics. These include racialised capitalism (Prasad, 2023), leadership (Fitzsimmons and Callan, 2020), career experience (Al Ariss and Syed, 2011; Winterheller and Hirt, 2017), skilled migration (Groutsis et al., 2019), and the diversity implications of AI (Vassilopoulou et al., 2024). Building on these insights, this article applies a Bourdieuian perspective to the context of board diversity. The specific focus is on the role that executive recruiters play in shaping ethno-racial diversity in board appointments.

To conceptualise this, we understand board recruitment as operating within a distinct field. This field is governed by its own logics and entrenched power relations (Bourdieu, 1977). A number of concepts are critical to understanding how this field is supported, reinforced, and reproduced. First, doxa refers to the taken-for-granted rules that structure what is considered acceptable and legitimate within the field (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). These rules produce social hierarchies and distinctions that appear natural or inevitable. Second, illusio describes the collective investment in and adherence to the doxa (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). This deep investment renders the actors within the field unlikely to question the legitimacy of the taken-for-granted rules, even when these result in outcomes that are exclusionary or harmful (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992).

Executive recruiters are not neutral facilitators in this process. Instead, they are socially embedded actors whose judgements and practices are shaped by the dominant logics of the field. In the context of board recruitment, illusio shapes how recruiters come to accept and reproduce definitions of who is considered board worthy or board ready. Deeply invested in the field, recruiters tend to follow these taken-for-granted rules without question. In doing so, they contribute to the consolidation of an ideal-type board candidate and reinforce exclusionary standards. These dynamics are further enabled by the absence of external accountability or formal responsibility for diversity outcomes.

Although diversity discourse has gained visibility in corporate Australia, the persistence of ethno-racial homogeneity at the board level warrants investigation. While recruitment operates within an abstract field shaped by shared beliefs and institutionalised norms, these abstract logics are enacted through everyday relationships. These relationships include those between recruiters and clients, and those between recruiters and incumbent board members. Through their interpretive actions, recruiters help shape who becomes visible, who is legitimised, and who remains excluded. Even within a system structured by deeply embedded norms, executive recruiters retain some capacity for interpretation and choice. Therefore, it is necessary to examine how they understand their role within the field. It is also important to investigate whether they perceive the prevailing norms as fixed, or whether they actively reflect on, resist, or reinforce them. These questions are essential to understanding how ethno-racial exclusion is maintained, and how it might be challenged, within the upper echelons of corporate leadership.

In sum, this study draws on Bourdieu’s theory of practice to focus analytical attention on the micro-level practices of executive recruiters. These actors respond to individual judgments and field-level expectations. In the absence of mandated diversity policies, recruiters rely on their own observations and lived experience to broker relationships between potential candidates and boards (Fernandez and Fernandez-Mateo, 2016). These interactions, which combine identity work and role interpretation, are key moments in which the status quo may be sustained or disrupted (Creed et al., 2014).

3. Method

The research team conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 9 consultants from Australia’s top 10 executive search firms engaged in board-level recruitment. These firms are internationally recognised as among the most influential in the field of executive search (Forbes, 2025). The interviews, undertaken between May and August 2018 and ranging in duration from 30 minutes to 2 hours, focused on eliciting insights from this niche and typically difficult-to access professional group. The modest sample size reflects the small and specialised population of consultants operating in board recruitment, a limitation characteristic of research involving elite respondents (Moore and Stokes, 2012).

As this study aims to offer ‘thick description’ and analytical generalisability rather than statistically representative findings (Geertz, 1973), we undertook purposive sampling, which is ‘used to select respondents that are most likely to yield appropriate and useful information’ (Kelly, 2010: 317; see also, Hennink and Kaiser, 2022; Islam and Aldaihani, 2022; Miles and Huberman, 1994). The process of participant recruitment adhered to University ethics guidelines, where participants were initially contacted through a third party, rather than the research team. The Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) sent out an email and link inviting recruiters to participate in the research. Following completion of an expression of interest to participate in an interview for the research project, interested parties were contacted by the research team to arrange an interview. Notably, due to the small size of the industry, no participant details are provided although pseudonyms reflect gender. The role, seniority, and location of our sample strengthened the explanatory depth of our findings, as the participants provided highly targeted information drawn from extensive expertise (Malterud et al., 2016). However, as with most opt-in interviews, participants were likely motivated by strong views on the topic of diversity, whether supportive or oppositional (Solarino and Aguinis, 2021). As such, perspectives that are more ambivalent or disengaged may be underrepresented. Future research could explore the views of those less vocal or less engaged with diversity discourse, to provide a more comprehensive picture of the field.

Semi-structured interviews were selected as the most appropriate method for data collection, as they allowed the research team to explore how executive recruiters interpret and influence recruitment outcomes through their everyday decisions and interactions (Creswell, 2009). Recruiters were asked to describe and reflect on their work in relation to board recruitment and diversity. The interviews covered a range of topics, including their personal and professional backgrounds, experiences with board appointments, perceptions of board diversity, understanding of ethno-racial diversity, the organisational mandate shaping their work, and their recruitment strategies. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using Atlas.ti. We employed an inductive approach to conduct and analyse the data, which is particularly well suited to examining the understudied role of executive recruiters, the emerging discourse on board diversity, and the nuanced insights offered by elite informants (Malterud et al., 2016). Our analysis was guided by Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of practice, which informed both the coding process and the interpretation of findings.

Our approach allowed us to elicit the personal accounts of recruiters by listening to their ‘individual voices and stories’, including their perceptions, feelings, motivations, and meanings attributed to their experience of board recruitment (Hennink et al., 2011: 109–111). The ‘depth’ and ‘richness’ of evidence was enhanced by drawing on open-ended questions where executive recruiters were able to steer the discussion, allowing us to make sense of the map of board recruitment and particularly so in terms of ethno-racial diversity on boards (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011).

Overall, the interviews sought to understand the role of executive recruiters in enabling (or not) board access for ethno-racially diverse board members. The key findings and analysis of the interviews are discussed in the next section.

4. Findings

Our key findings are informed by interviews with representatives of top-tier, internationally recognised executive search firms. Guided by Bourdieuian insights, these conversations reveal how broader institutional logics shape board recruitment practices (the field), influence interactions with clients and incumbents (doxa), and reproduce underlying taken-for-granted rules that determine an almost blind faith in and acceptance of who is considered suitable for board appointments (illusio) (Bourdieu, 1977). The data highlight the central role of conventions, elite networks, client mandates, and recruiters’ own professional judgements in shaping the board selection process (Faulconbridge et al., 2009; Fernandez and Fernandez-Mateo, 2016).

5. Discussion and future directions

The findings show that executive recruiters serve as key intermediaries between candidates and boards. The field of these intermediaries is shaped by their professional relationships, accumulated experience, and embedded networks, all of which inform how they identify, evaluate, and advocate for candidates (Chanland and Murphy, 2018; Wright et al., 2024). As noted, they are also guided by the field’s doxa (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992): the taken-for-granted assumptions about who is ‘board-ready’. By endorsing certain candidate profiles over others, recruiters reinforce or reshape these assumptions and outcomes (Rivera, 2012).

For many, their belief in the stakes of the field – or illusio – drives them to unquestioningly favour candidates who embody conventional markers of legitimacy. This illusio is sustained by orthodoxy, the established order that normalises dominant practices and power relations in corporate board recruitment. As a key agent, executive recruiters become complicit in maintaining the pre-existing hierarchy.

Encouragingly, respondents also noted that with pressures for diversity intensifying, some recruiters reinterpret the doxa, expanding the definition of candidate suitability to include an intentional focus on diversity beyond gender. This shift reflects a re-negotiation of the field, where pre-existing rules are challenged by new logics and expectations (Bourdieu, 1977). As such, recruiters are seen to also act as agents of change, challenging the status quo by advocating for less conventional candidates. By introducing different networks, diverse backgrounds, or expertise, they broaden the criteria for board membership and alter the field’s prevailing logics. This dual capacity to either reproduce or transform the field underscores the powerful role executive recruiters can play in shaping who gains access to or is excluded from corporate boards. This duality has certainly been demonstrated in work examining the significance of recruiters’ roles in creating pathways for women on boards (Baldo et al., 2019, recruiter as ‘accidental champions’ of diversity; Doldor et al., 2016; Fernandez and Fernandez-Mateo, 2016, recruiters fortifying the status quo).

Our findings highlight how recruiters, though embedded in structured and normatively governed environments, exercise interpretive agency in how they understand, negotiate, and implement diversity considerations. These actions are shaped by both doxa (the taken-for-granted norms of board composition) and the evolving demands of clients, stakeholders, and the market. Formal and informal conventions are co-constituted through ongoing interaction between recruiters and powerful organisational actors, particularly board chairs and nominations committees (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Creed et al., 2014; Georgakakis et al., 2021; Zattoni et al., 2023).

The research reveals that recruiters can influence access to elite board positions through micro-level actions, such as advocating for particular candidates, shaping shortlists, and initiating conversations with clients about diversity (Georgakakis et al., 2021). However, this influence is highly uneven across diversity dimensions. Gender diversity is the dominant focus, consistently foregrounded in client mandates, supported by external reporting frameworks, and reinforced by campaigns such as the 30% Club (30% Club nd). In contrast, ethno-racial diversity remains peripheral. Project informants described it as emerging only in specific circumstances, such as when a company enters a new overseas market, and even then, it is often raised by individual recruiters rather than being driven by organisational-level priorities. This instrumental and incidental framing of ethno-racial diversity reflects a broader pattern in the Australian board recruitment landscape (Fernandez and Fernandez-Mateo, 2016). Our informants emphasise there is little systematic investment, resourcing, strategies, or accountability mechanisms devoted to improving ethno-racial representation. Recruiters’ engagement with the ‘business case’ for diversity appeared inconsistent and often half-hearted, mobilised more as rhetorical justification than as a transformative strategy. Several participants noted that Australia lags behind international counterparts in this regard, particularly in the absence of policy levers or regulatory incentives akin to those used to promote gender equity (Creed et al., 2014; Guest, 2019).

These findings lead to three key theoretical contributions. First, our study extends Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of practice by positioning executive recruiters, situated within the field of board recruitment, as key actors who mediate between institutional structures and individual access to symbolic power. Their actions, shape the field’s illusio, reproducing dominant norms around ‘board readiness’ and thereby uphold the status quo image of the ‘ideal board member’: an image shaped by norms that erase ethno-racial diversity. At the same time, executive recruiters possess the potential to disrupt these dominant logics. This analysis adds nuance to practice theory by illuminating how intermediary actors engage in both symbolic and strategic work that can either reproduce or reconfigure elite inclusion.

Second, we contribute to diversity scholarship through a Bourdieuian analysis of how board diversity is constructed and enacted, showing how the field and doxa inform the practices and perceptions surrounding diversity. While prior research has primarily focused on macro-level policy or individual-level barriers (Sheridan et al., 2015, 2021; Wright et al., 2024), our study shows how field-level logics sustain the racialised status quo and shape which forms of diversity are legitimised in Australian boardrooms. Gender diversity, in this case, has become instituitionalised as an orthodoxy that is embedded in organisational discourse, formal reporting mechanisms and every-day practices (Fernandez and Fernandez-Mateo, 2016). By contrast, ethno-racial diversity remains marginal within accepted diversity discourses about Australian boards and is recognised only when it serves instrumental business interests. This reveals how diversity itself is subject to symbolic hierarchies, where only certain forms are granted visibility, recognition, and value within the field.

Third, we challenge the view of executive recruiters as neutral agents by conceptualising them as active participants in institution building (Tyrowicz et al., 2020). Their interpretive labour, relational positioning, and embedded authority allow them to influence how boards perceive and evaluate candidate legitimacy. Some recruiters act as ‘accidental champions’, selectively challenging the status quo under particular conditions, while others reproduce dominant norms by privileging conventional configurations of capital (Baldo et al., 2019; Doldor et al., 2016). This actor-centred perspective foregrounds the importance of meso-level dynamics and micro-level practices in shaping who gains access to positions of symbolic and organisational power.

There remains much to learn about the evolving relationship between executive recruiters and corporate elites. Future research could examine whether regulatory mechanisms, such as mandated reporting on gender, alter recruiters’ practices and outcomes for other underrepresented groups. Comparative studies across countries with different governance structures could shed light on how institutional variation affects recruiter discretion and diversity outcomes. Longitudinal research could also trace how perceptions of ‘board readiness’ shift over time in response to policy interventions, public scrutiny, or changing market dynamics. In addition, further inquiry into the lived experience of recruiters could reveal how personal histories, values, and identities shape their interpretation of institutional norms, and whether these orientations position them as champions of change or custodians of exclusion. Investigating the relational dynamics between recruiters and board members, particularly how legitimacy is coconstructed or contested, would provide deeper insight into how symbolic capital is distributed or withheld in appointment processes. Finally, a closer investigation into how recruiters’ ofteninvisible actions shape board composition would help uncover the hidden mechanisms through which symbolic power is reproduced or interrupted in elite organisational spaces.

6. Conclusion

This article has examined the role of executive recruiters in shaping board diversity in Australia, with a particular focus on the persistent underrepresentation of ethno-racial minorities. Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice, we have conceptualised board recruitment as a field structured by institutional logics, doxic assumptions, and symbolic hierarchies. Within this field, executive recruiters operate as powerful intermediaries who interpret, reproduce (as complicit agents), or occasionally contest (as change agents) – prevailing definitions of candidate legitimacy. In spite of the tension between the desire of recruiters for better diversity outcomes and the commercial necessity to deliver an outcome acceptable to the paying client, the recruiters’ actions – shaped by the field and sustained by their investment in the field’s illusio – play a critical role in upholding the status quo image of the ‘ideal board member’.

Our findings foreground a key - yet often - overlooked stakeholder group in board composition. While gender diversity has become institutionalised through policy, reporting, and advocacy, ethno-racial diversity remains marginalised. It typically emerges only when aligned with business imperatives or promoted by individual actors rather than through systemic commitment. By illuminating the selective nature of diversity discourse and the micro-level mechanisms that sustain exclusion, this study reveals the often-invisible ways in which symbolic power is exercised in elite recruitment processes.

This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the dynamics of board diversity by examining the influence of executive recruiters. These professionals hold significant power in shaping board composition, yet they remain largely beyond the reach of regulation, oversight, or formal accountability. By examining the norms, values, and interactions that underpin board search processes, this study offers a more nuanced and field-sensitive account of how access to elite organisational spaces is controlled and negotiated. Bringing these practices into view is essential for advancing both scholarly inquiry and practical interventions aimed at promoting more equitable and inclusive boardrooms in Australia and beyond.