Every March, organisations briefly adjust their tone. On March 8, for a day, the spotlight shines brightly on women. Internal emails highlight achievements. Panels are convened. Bouquets given. Social media is filled with tribute posts. And then the routine resumes.
If Women’s Day is to carry real meaning, it cannot remain a ceremonial interruption. Celebration has value, but unless it is paired with structural change, it becomes symbolic reassurance rather than progress.
One practical shift would signal seriousness immediately: Ensure that at least half the participants in Women’s Day events are men. Gender equity cannot advance through conversations held largely among women. The people who still disproportionately influence promotions, compensation, succession planning, and high-visibility assignments must be in the room. Inclusion cannot operate on a parallel track. It must sit at the centre of organisational life. A women-only room signals, however unintentionally, that this is not the organisation’s agenda — just theirs.
Women do not lack ambition or competence. What they often lack is a system that interprets their choices without distortion and evaluates their performance without bias.
From celebration to institutional accountability
Women’s Day offers a strong platform for an audit. Organisations meticulously track financial metrics. They examine revenue growth, margins, and capital allocation with discipline. Representation and progression deserve equal scrutiny. How many women hold revenue-accountable roles? How many lead core business lines rather than support functions? What proportion of succession pipelines includes credible female candidates? What happens to promotion trajectories after career breaks?
Without such transparency, commitments remain aspirational. Treating Women’s Day as an annual checkpoint rather than a symbolic observance would shift it from performance to performance management.
Reclaiming the language of merit
Another misconception that requires dismantling is the idea that gender equity is in tension with merit. It is not. It is not anti-men either. Organisations that exclude half their talent pool are not defending merit — they are shrinking it. In competitive markets, that is a strategic risk.
The case for supporting more women in leadership is about uncovering where the merit actually lies. Diverse leadership expands the breadth of ideas, spurs innovation, and builds cultures where more people can do their best work. When this becomes clear, the conversation shifts from ideology to effectiveness.
The mechanics of everyday bias
Bias is rarely overt; it seldom announces itself in dramatic episodes. More often, it accumulates quietly. It appears in who is invited into high-stakes meetings. Whose ideas are amplified. Who is described as “ready” for stretch roles. These daily judgments, repeated over time, shape careers in powerful ways.
Interrogating how ambition is interpreted is critical. Assertiveness in men is frequently labelled confidence. The same behaviour in women may be read as aggressiveness. The same behaviour, two different conclusions. At the same time, understatement in women can be mistaken for lack of drive.
Mentorship programmes have become common. They offer guidance and encouragement. But mentorship alone does not shift power. Sponsorship does.
Sponsorship occurs when a senior leader stakes their credibility on someone’s potential. It means advocating for a woman in promotion discussions, recommending her for strategic assignments, and ensuring her name surfaces in succession planning conversations. These moments often unfold behind closed doors, but they are decisive.
Women’s Day should therefore prompt senior leaders to ask difficult questions of themselves. Whose growth am I actively championing? Who do I recommend when an opportunity arises? Are my instincts shaped by familiarity rather than fairness?
Beyond Commemoration
The point is not to single out one day for grand declarations. Nor is it to reduce progress to celebratory messaging. It is to use the day as a catalyst for honest reflection and institutional recalibration. Discomfort may follow. But that discomfort signals engagement with real issues rather than cosmetic gestures.
The irony is that women are already shaping their own paths, often navigating complexity with resilience and ingenuity. The larger question is whether the systems around them are evolving at the same pace.
The real test comes the day after Women’s Day, when promotion decisions are made, when stretch roles are assigned, when leadership potential is assessed. If nothing changes, then the celebration was theatre. If systems shift, even incrementally, Women’s Day begins to matter.
The writer headed Crisil and ONI
