If 4 out of 1,000 women would make excellent engineers, and 1 out of 1,000 men would make excellent engineers, and yet we see that the distribution of actual engineers is something other than 4:1, we should investigate.
We might want to investigate, but "should" is a strong word. There are all kinds of reasons why this could happen, and some of them might not need fixing.
It could be that the total number of people who would make excellent engineers is too low for the number needed, and that men (in your example) are more likely to make adequate or good engineers than women, even though women are more likely to make excellent ones.
It could be that women in general, in spite of being four times as likely to make excellent engineers, tend not to enjoy engineering for cultural or other reasons.
It could be that the women who would be excellent engineers are in the group that would be pretty good CEOs, and they all become CEOs because there's more money in it.
But you get my point: the failure of actual people to conform to the occupations that they would be best at is not, in and of itself, evidence of a problem.
We might want to investigate, but "should" is a strong word. There are all kinds of reasons why this could happen, and some of them might not need fixing.
It could be that the total number of people who would make excellent engineers is too low for the number needed, and that men (in your example) are more likely to make adequate or good engineers than women, even though women are more likely to make excellent ones.
It could be that women in general, in spite of being four times as likely to make excellent engineers, tend not to enjoy engineering for cultural or other reasons.
It could be that the women who would be excellent engineers are in the group that would be pretty good CEOs, and they all become CEOs because there's more money in it.
But you get my point: the failure of actual people to conform to the occupations that they would be best at is not, in and of itself, evidence of a problem.