If every CEO in the country is focused on the financial well-being of the companies they lead, why then isn’t diversity at the top levels of management a priority? In a global survey conducted by McKinsey Quarterly, the respondents believed that the more women in top spots of management, the healthier the financial performance of the company. So why then, do women still lag behind their male counterparts, even as the majority of men surveyed suggests that this is an importnat aspect of their business success?

There are several reasons why some businesses focus on this sort of diversity. First and foremost is a visible agenda. Once something such as monitoring is in place, the chances of women advancing increases. But the effort only goes so far. Citing flexible schedules as the key to this increase in inclusivity. This sort of policy has proven extremely effect in not only retaining female workers but in the recruiting process as well. Once a business environment focuses on this a one of their top agenda items, the amount of women under their employment jumps – along with their financial outlook.

The report suggests that “After flexible working conditions, respondents say that their companies are likeliest to have implemented support programs for reconciling work and family life, as well as programs to encourage female networking and role models, both in equal shares.” Unfortunately, this is much more likely to happen at large companies rather than small.

McKinsey quarterly suggests tow separate policies at work. The hard agenda, most often employed by Asian businesses (the survey was done globally, with Asian/Pacific marketplaces scoring the highest among the respondents) involves setting policies that specifically suggest that women provide a much needed bonus to the future of the company. These policies include gender quaotas and the insistence that women be part of any promotion pool.

The soft policy, often used by North American employers include not only the flexible schedule but the mandate directed at senior officials to mentor the female worker pool. Even as the report suggests “Just 18 percent of respondents say their companies’ CEO and executive team visibly monitor these efforts, though nearly half say visible monitoring has the biggest impact on increasing gender diversity in general—more than any other tactical measure”, North American employers have consistently lagged behind their global counterparts in achieving those goals.

This lack of top management awareness has hindered the advancement of women and in many respects, this has shown fewer promotions of women as a result. In other words, talk about doing something to help the woman worker has been proven to help companies achieve better financial success, few have seriously considered the impact. If “visible monitoring by the CEO, skill building specifically aimed at women, and mentoring, perhaps even on a mandatory basis” has been conclusively proven to help a company, why have so few actually acknowledged this as a factor in the company’s success?

In a paper done by Nancy M. Carter and Christine Silva, the problem is one of hope and promises as yet fulfilled. The adage that if you “Just give it time. Not yet, but soon. When women get the right education, the right training, the right work experience, and the right aspirations—to succeed at the highest levels of business— then we’ll see parity” has yet to manifest itself in the workplace leads them to the conclusion that the pipeline is broken. As Anne Mulcahy, chairman of Xerox suggests, it is where you first land that makes the difference in where you eventually end up. Men with MBAs tend to begin their work careers not only with higher salaries (about $4600 per year) but in a better assignment, with greater responsibilities than their female counterparts.

This hiring practice puts women behind the promotion curve right from the beginning and because of that, they begin their careers already at a distinct disadvantage to their male counterparts of equal education and experience. There are several things a company can do to fix this disparity.

Salary metrics must be questioned in a side-by-side comparison. Once women are hired based on qualifications and promoted with that in mind, they do better in the overall promotional aspect of the job. Yet companies still make presumptions and once that happens, men of equal caliber land in a better position to be recognized. Companies also lag behind developmental programs. As Stephanie A. Streeter, acting CEO of the US Olympic Committee points out, the rungs on the ladder are not as evenly spaced as one might assume.

Does job hopping help? It does but the reasons for leaving one job in favor of another differ. Job hopping is just as likely to happen among women and men. But women were more likely to cite a difficult manager as the reason rather than simply increasing their salary and promotional opportunities. Child-rearing, their report suggested had about equal weighting among men and women and is often considered a non-factor in how long one is employed. But the assumption is prevalent in the hiring process and promotional considerations.

One of the problems the Catalyst report uncovered was the non-traditional career path. Women were more likely to choose to work, albeit briefly, for non-profit organizations, in education, as self-employed or as part-time workers. men who stayed on the traditional path did better pay-wise and promotion-wise than female workers who were quite possibly more diverse because of the experience. Not surprising, this led to more career satisfaction among men than women, even as women chose those enriching experiences off the beaten path.

And although CEOs recognize this lack of parity, they place some of the blame on the very schools where these groups attend. They suggest that if business schools stressed a better placement at their hiring. Once they miss that initial step, they might never recover. This doesn’t leave businesses off the hook. They need to identify talent. As James Turley, Chairman and CEO of Ernst & Young sees it business leaders need to “make sure they’re [women] getting the same development and visibility chances as the men. We need to focus even more on how we’re leading our companies to get the most out of employees.”

Once this happens, the retirement playing field, now skewed towards men, will be leveled with more women achieving healthy portfolios and better financial health. And although the pipeline does seem to be broken, it is not beyond repair.