We have spent decades opening doors for women. Why does progress toward leadership equality remain so slow? And what will it take to change that?
This is Part 2 of a two-part series. Part 1 looked at what the numbers show: the broken rung, the sponsorship gap, the invisible expectations we carry about leadership, the career penalty for having a family, and why a century of changed laws has not changed the culture. If you have not read it, start here: Part 1. Part 2 is about what we do with that.
Fairness does not require special treatment
I want to be clear about something. I am not advocating that women should receive leadership positions they have not earned. Nor do I believe organizations should lower performance standards to achieve a particular representation target. Capability, competence, character, and results should matter. But if those are genuinely the standards we believe in, then we must be willing to examine whether we apply them consistently.
If a woman is qualified, has delivered results, and has demonstrated leadership potential, why should assumptions about her personality, family circumstances, or social expectations influence her opportunities?
We often assume our decisions are objective. But even the most well-intentioned people carry biases they may not recognize. Perhaps we need to rethink how we evaluate candidates for leadership positions. How much weight do we give to demonstrated accomplishments, and how much to an interviewer's personal sense of comfort or relatability?
Women writers have sometimes used male names or initials to avoid having their work judged through assumptions about gender. George Eliot, the pen name of Mary Ann Evans, is one such example. Decades later, J.K. Rowling's publisher encouraged the use of initials partly out of concern that boys might be less inclined to read a book by a woman.
Different circumstances, different centuries, but they raise a familiar question. Would the same work be judged differently if the person behind it were perceived to be a man? Perhaps that is a question we should continue asking in recruitment and promotion as well.
Could initial screening rely more heavily on demonstrated experience and capability, with less unnecessary personal information influencing decisions?
A fair playing field does not mean everyone receives the same outcome. It means everyone has a fair opportunity to demonstrate what they are capable of. If a woman is not capable, if she has not earned her right, don't give her that place. But if she has, then stop judging her so harshly.
The policy environment is changing. What happens now?
The recent retreat from diversity and inclusion programs in the United States adds another dimension to this conversation. The current administration has reversed several federal diversity initiatives and introduced additional restrictions and scrutiny, including measures affecting federal contractors. Supporters of these changes argue that employment opportunities should be determined by merit and that organizations should avoid preferential treatment based on characteristics such as race or sex. That principle of equal treatment is important.
But if the processes that identify, develop, and promote talent are already producing persistent disparities, removing programs designed to examine those disparities does not automatically create a meritocracy.
Fairness requires us to examine whether everyone has a genuine opportunity to demonstrate merit in the first place.
The 2025 Women in the Workplace study found that only half of participating companies were prioritizing women's career advancement. Some organizations had already scaled back remote work, formal sponsorship, and targeted career development.
My concern is that as organizations become increasingly cautious about diversity initiatives, the effort to address long-standing barriers may lose momentum. At the same time, protections against unlawful sex discrimination remain in place. Organizations still have the ability, and responsibility, to develop talent fairly, use transparent selection standards, and examine whether qualified employees have comparable access to opportunity.
And if companies begin stepping back from voluntary initiatives, who takes responsibility? I believe corporate leaders still have an obligation to examine these issues. It is a responsibility that extends beyond quarterly results or compliance with government policies.
It is about the society we are creating.
What does it actually mean to be an ally?
We have been talking about allyship in corporate America for years. But I sometimes wonder what that word has come to mean. Is being an ally something we declare at work? A badge we wear, a training we attend, or an initiative we publicly support?
Or is it something reflected in how we conduct ourselves every day? Are we supporting women only when our organizations expect us to, or are we equally supportive at home, in our communities, and in the way we raise our children?
Are we encouraging our daughters to become independent thinkers and leaders? Are we teaching our sons to respect women as equals?
When a capable woman speaks up in a meeting, do we listen with the same openness we would extend to a man? When she puts herself forward for an opportunity, do we evaluate her readiness by the same standards? When she demonstrates exceptional potential, are we willing to recommend her, advocate for her, and open doors? And when another person unfairly dismisses her contribution, are we willing to challenge that judgment?
These are the moments when allyship becomes meaningful.
It is not a responsibility that belongs only to men. Women, too, have a role in examining their assumptions about other women, supporting their advancement, and creating opportunities for those who follow.
I have seen remarkable men who have sponsored, mentored, and championed women throughout their careers. Their contribution deserves recognition.
What I would like to see is more of that behavior becoming part of our everyday culture, without needing a special program or corporate designation to encourage it. We do not need to coddle women. We do not need to make concessions for someone who has not demonstrated the capability to lead.
We need to stop applying harsher judgments to women who have.
What can we do without waiting for companies to change?
I have spent a great deal of my professional life working within large organizations, and I now work with women who are developing their own paths to leadership.
What I have learned is that individual development matters. But there is a limit to what individual development alone can accomplish. You can teach a woman to speak with confidence, negotiate, build executive presence, and advocate for herself.
But you cannot ask her to single-handedly correct an unfair system.
At the same time, waiting for organizations or governments to solve everything is not a strategy.
I believe there are practical steps we can begin taking now.
1. Make sponsorship deliberate, not accidental
Senior leaders can make a commitment to identify emerging talent and actively advocate for capable individuals. Not just mentor them. Sponsor them.
Introduce them to influential people. Recommend them for stretch assignments. Give them opportunities to present to senior leadership. Put their names forward when important positions become available.
Women should also be deliberate about sponsoring other women, particularly those earlier in their careers. But advancing women should never become an additional responsibility carried exclusively by senior women. Men must participate equally.
2. Teach women how influence and advancement actually work
We teach people technical skills. We teach performance management and leadership competencies. But how often do we teach them to identify decision-makers, build strategic relationships, make their accomplishments visible, or ask directly for sponsorship?
How often do we prepare women to navigate power without feeling that doing so compromises their integrity?
And without fearing that their assertiveness will be mistaken for aggression?
These skills should be part of career education much earlier.
3. Build professional networks that create opportunities
A network should be more than a collection of contacts or occasional meetings. Imagine communities where experienced professionals actively introduce younger women to opportunities, refer them for leadership roles, share knowledge, recommend one another, and celebrate each other's accomplishments.
These networks can extend beyond individual employers and industries. They can include men who are committed to identifying and supporting exceptional talent. We cannot eliminate institutional barriers through networking alone.
But we can create additional pathways that do not depend entirely on a single manager or organization.
4. Make leadership opportunities measurable and transparent
Who receives stretch assignments? Who is introduced to senior leadership? Who is considered for succession? Who gets promoted after returning from parental leave? Who has access to sponsors?
These are decisions organizations can examine. If companies are genuinely committed to merit, they should be willing to assess whether their systems identify talent fairly, apply consistent standards, and provide qualified employees with comparable opportunities.
Performance matters. Results matter. But so does access to the opportunities that allow someone to demonstrate those results.
5. Prepare women for the economy that is coming
There is another reason this conversation cannot wait. The next generation of economic opportunity is already being shaped by artificial intelligence, automation, and new forms of entrepreneurship.
According to the World Economic Forum's 2026 analysis, women accounted for only 26% of new hires into AI roles in the United States during the period studied, compared with 50% of hires into non-AI roles. Globally, women account for just 13% of C-suite AI executives at AI companies. At the same time, women make up 57% of workers in occupations identified as most exposed to potential disruption from generative AI.
That combination should concern us. If women are underrepresented in the emerging industries that will create tomorrow's wealth, influence, and leadership positions, we risk repeating the same patterns in an entirely new economy. The next generation needs access to technical education, AI skills, entrepreneurial opportunities, capital, influential networks, and early leadership experiences.
And that preparation needs to begin now.
6. Change what we teach the next generation about leadership
Girls should learn early that ambition is legitimate, that building relationships is part of professional life, that asking for opportunities is appropriate, and that supporting another woman's success does not diminish their own. Boys should grow up with the expectation that women are equally legitimate authorities, decision-makers, and leaders.
Parents, teachers, mentors, managers, and community leaders all influence those expectations.
We should be careful about the messages we communicate, sometimes unintentionally, about who is expected to lead, who is expected to accommodate, and whose ambition is considered acceptable.
Cultural change happens through the behaviors we repeat, the standards we enforce, and the examples we set. A company can change a policy overnight. Changing what people instinctively believe about leadership may take much longer. But that does not mean we cannot begin.
What kind of world are we leaving for our daughters?
I know many fathers who are enormously proud of their daughters. They encourage them to study, pursue ambitious careers, become financially independent, and believe that the world is full of possibilities. They raise them to believe they can accomplish anything.
Then those daughters enter the professional world.
They encounter barriers that are often subtle and difficult to prove. A missed opportunity. An important meeting they were not invited to attend. A senior leader who advocates for someone else. A promotion delayed. A family decision that suddenly changes how their commitment is perceived.
And gradually, some discover that the playing field is not as level as they were led to believe.
Imagine raising a daughter with every opportunity to succeed, only to have her encounter the same cultural obstacles her mother or grandmother faced decades earlier.
What, essentially, has changed?
I believe every leader, and every parent, should be asking this question. Because this is no longer just about the current generation of women. It is about what happens 10, 20, and 50 years from now. I do not want the next generation to inherit the same limitations under a different set of corporate policies.
Fifty years from now
The most sobering number in the World Economic Forum's analysis is its estimate that closing the global leadership representation gap could take approximately 90 years at the recent pace of progress. That should trouble all of us.
I cannot accept that this is simply the natural pace at which society evolves.
We have demonstrated an extraordinary ability to transform industries, economies, and technologies within a single generation. Surely we can bring similar intention to transforming the opportunities available to half of our population. The next generation should not have to begin the same struggle all over again.
And I believe the responsibility for changing that begins with the decisions we make today.
In government, in corporate boardrooms, in classrooms, in our homes, and in the way we treat one another every day. In who we mentor, who we recommend, whose voice we amplify, whose potential we recognize, and whose future we choose to invest in.
We have taught generations of women to prepare themselves for leadership. Perhaps it is time we examine whether we have been equally committed to preparing our institutions and our society to recognize and support them.
Fifty years from now, will our daughters still be having this same conversation?
If the answer is yes, then we have not done enough.
This is Part 2 of a two-part series. Part 1, on what the numbers show and why the pattern keeps repeating, is here: Part 1.
Sources and further reading
World Economic Forum, September 16, 2026. Women's Leadership Is Missing in the Jobs Shaping Tomorrow's Economy, Leaving Economic Opportunity on the Table. AI hiring and leadership, exposure to generative AI, founders, and the estimated timeline to parity.
McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.Org, December 9, 2025. Women in the Workplace 2025. Company commitment to women's advancement, sponsorship and organizational practices.
LeanIn.Org, 2025. Women in the Workplace Report. Additional discussion and resources from the joint McKinsey and Lean In research.
The White House, March 26, 2026. Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors. Executive Order 14398. Primary source on changes to federal contractor requirements concerning certain diversity practices.
The White House, January 21, 2025. Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. Executive Order 14173, which revoked Executive Order 11246 for federal contractors.
