Commercial real estate has long been relationship-driven, entrepreneurial, and performance-focused. It’s also an industry that prides itself on being merit-based — you produce, you rise. And yet, when you look at leadership teams across many firms, a clear pattern emerges: they often don’t reflect the broader communities, tenant bases, or investor groups they serve.
So the question is fair: does commercial real estate have a diversity problem?
The honest answer is yes — particularly at the leadership level.
The Pipeline Myth
One of the most common explanations is “pipeline.” Firms will often say there simply aren’t enough diverse candidates with the right experience in asset management, acquisitions, development, or executive leadership.
But that explanation only tells part of the story.
While it’s true that historically the industry drew from relatively homogenous networks — top brokerage teams, family offices, legacy ownership groups — the candidate pool today is far broader than it was even ten years ago. There are diverse professionals in FP&A, institutional asset management, public REITs, development shops, and private equity platforms who are more than qualified to step into senior roles.
The issue isn’t always a lack of talent. Often, it’s access and visibility.
The Network Effect
Commercial real estate hiring still relies heavily on referrals and closed networks. Leaders tend to hire people who look like their past top performers — or like themselves. It’s rarely intentional exclusion. It’s pattern recognition.
But pattern recognition can unintentionally reinforce sameness.
If boards and executive teams are built from the same professional circles year after year, leadership composition remains static. That has long-term implications — not just reputationally, but strategically. Diverse leadership teams consistently outperform in decision-making, risk management, and innovation. In a capital-intensive, cyclical industry like CRE, those advantages matter.
Where Firms Get Stuck
Many firms express a desire to diversify leadership but stall in execution. Common sticking points include:
- Overly rigid experience requirements
- An unwillingness to invest in mentorship or leadership development
- Fear of “taking a risk” on a nontraditional background
- Lack of accountability at the board or ownership level
In reality, every senior hire carries risk. The difference is whether firms are willing to expand their definition of “qualified.”
What Actually Moves the Needle
Meaningful progress doesn’t come from a one-time initiative or a polished statement. It comes from structural shifts in how hiring and promotion decisions are made.
Here are a few that work:
1. Broaden the candidate slate intentionally.
If your final interview slate looks identical to your current leadership team, that’s a signal. Expanding search parameters — geographically, functionally, and demographically — uncovers strong operators who may not have been on your radar.
2. Reevaluate “culture fit.”
Culture fit can become a catch-all phrase that masks bias. Reframing the conversation around “culture add” encourages leadership teams to ask how a candidate could strengthen — not simply replicate — the existing dynamic.
3. Invest earlier in the pipeline.
Firms that actively mentor mid-level talent and provide real P&L exposure create stronger internal promotion paths. Leadership diversity rarely happens overnight. It’s built over time.
4. Tie leadership compensation to outcomes.
What gets measured gets managed. When diversity and succession planning are embedded into executive KPIs, they become operational priorities instead of side conversations.
Why This Matters Now
Capital partners, institutional investors, and even tenants are paying closer attention to leadership composition. Governance expectations are evolving. Firms that are proactive will be better positioned with investors, lenders, and joint venture partners who increasingly evaluate environmental, social, and governance metrics alongside returns.
But beyond optics and ESG reporting, this is about competitiveness.
The firms that will win the next decade of commercial real estate are those that can adapt quickly, attract top-tier talent across demographics, and build leadership teams capable of navigating complexity. Limiting your candidate pool — intentionally or not — is a strategic disadvantage.
A Realistic Perspective
Change in CRE has historically been incremental, not revolutionary. This will likely be no different. But momentum is building. We’re seeing more diverse professionals stepping into senior asset management, capital markets, and development roles than ever before.
The opportunity for firms isn’t just to “fix a problem.” It’s to build stronger, more resilient leadership teams.
For those actively hiring or thinking about succession planning, the conversation is no longer whether diversity matters. The conversation is whether your hiring strategy is aligned with the future of the industry.
As always, we’re happy to be a strategic partner in those discussions.