Meritocracy only works if the door is open in the first place: International Women’s Day in 2025

This weekend saw the celebration of International Women’s Day. Cue the LinkedIn posts about female CEOs, and celebration of awards ceremonies dominated by female pop stars, reflecting their gains – big and small – made in the last decade in music and beyond. 

Yet this day is notably overshadowed by recent developments in industry and politics. Mark Zuckerberg recently proclaimed that too much ‘feminine energy’ has ‘neutered’ the business world, and, as outlined by the official website for The White House, US President Trump is doing away with inclusion policies. His administration has pushed to flag – and potentially ban – publications that include terms such as ‘female’, ‘LGBTQ’, ‘activism’, ‘bias’, ‘bipoc’, and ‘discrimination’ in the Federal government, among many others (per Gizmodo). 

There are those in the everyday business world who celebrate this, others who oppose it vehemently, and many who keep silent, unsure if it’s really a ‘big deal’. Moral arguments, for better or worse, do not often affect business practices. So, let us look at the economic implications that should be considered in the boardroom as these trends continue to escalate. 

Women are consumers, too

Women are important participants in the economy, making up 49.6% of the population globally, and 50.5% of the population in the US, according to the US Census. According to MIDiA Research’s Consumer Survey, women go to gigs roughly as often as men do (13% compared to 14% of men), buy smartphones, and play mobile games more often than men (59% to men’s 52%). 

More than half of women over the age of 25 are employed in the US, and on top of this are often in charge of managing households – meaning they are more likely to be entirely, or at least partly, responsible for significant familial financial decisions.

Not having women in the rooms that are shaping decisions about the events, products, and advertising that need to draw their spending means ceding critical insight and business advantage and exacerbating blind spots. 

More diverse teams can cover more ground 

A team of five people with different life experiences, identities, and backgrounds will inevitably have more ideas to contribute to a brainstorming session, than a team of five who are all largely similar. They will also have more perspectives with which to critique those ideas before going to testing or the market, saving time and improving outcomes. 

Yet if this is the case, why aren’t all teams diverse – and why does the diversity not always work? Looking at the statistics that point to broadly homogenous leadership (and entire workforces) in certain industries, there is clearly something at play. Presumably it is not just because men are intrinsically excellent at the wiles of business in ways that others could never hope to be. 

There is, fortunately, a more comprehensive answer available.

Generations of culture that have prioritised some voices over others result in differences in who gets listened to subconsciously, even today. In our ‘BE THE CHANGE’ study published last year (free to download here), women were more likely to report being interrupted while talking or presenting, and having their suggestions not taken as seriously as male colleagues, regardless of their respective levels of experience or qualifications. A lack of “ill will” behind the behaviour did not stop it from happening, or being prohibitive for women to contribute. 

There is also the underlying potential for harassment (experienced by a shocking three in five women in music) and assault (one in five), compounded by the poor responses to reporting it: 56% said their claims were ignored or dismissed after reporting assault and 38% were ‘blacklisted’ afterwards. This can make women less comfortable with sharing or defending their ideas, less willing to put themselves in one-on-one conversations that might otherwise boost their careers, and reluctant to participate in after-hours team bonding activities, simply to be better ‘safe than sorry’. 

Meritocracy only works if the door is open in the first place 

This is, of course, assuming that women can get into the room at all. We would all love to fully believe in meritocracy – that your hard work will pay off, no matter who you are – but being able to demonstrate your hard work requires getting in the door in the first place. There are numerous barriers: from AI automatically prioritising Ivy League male CVs, to behind-the-scenes hiring decisions based on who will ‘fit in’ at the bar or the golf club after work. Often, it is simply the catch-22 of ‘you need experience, to get the job, to get experience’, which many female artists interviewed for the BE THE CHANGE project reported was difficult because time-poor event organisers wanted ‘safe bets’ and worried that male crowds might complain about a female DJ, for example. 

Often, policies designed to facilitate diversity can be clumsy and double-edged. Women-only award categories, for example, can get more women on the awards lists – but also insinuate that they cannot compete against men. Quotas are also often used for admissions or hiring practices. However, less than a fifth of female survey respondents found quotas helpful, with interviews highlighting issues of tokenism and lack of meaningful follow-through. The implication of a quota is that they do not get jobs because they are qualified, but rather for the sake of optics – which re-contributes to underlying issues, be it lack of respect from colleagues, or feelings of self doubt and imposter syndrome that can hurt their performance. 

Even without all this, women are more likely to find they are underpaid compared to their colleagues, face greater pressure in the workplace, and are more likely to be criticised for minor things like their tone, physical appearance, or life choices (i.e., to have or not have children). 

Mark Zuckerberg complaining about a need for more ‘masculine energy’ is ironic, given only 5% of leadership roles in the tech industry are occupied by women, who also make up less than a third of the sector’s total workforce, according to a study by PwC. It is also harmful, pushing already-underrepresentative businesses to skew more homogenous, rather than diversify their teams, talent pools, and bets. 

Perhaps, instead of buying flowers this International Women’s Day, let a female colleague have the floor – and stop colleagues from interrupting her. Forget the moral benefit: it is just good business.