When Good Intentions Are Not Enough

Now that the speeches have faded and the posts have disappeared from our feeds, the question remains. International Women’s Day brought with it the familiar wave of well-meaning pledges, thoughtful tributes, and sincere commitments to change. So it has been for many years.

The gaps in power, pay, and influence persist, across a continent where gender equality has long been considered a self-evident principle. Nowhere is this more apparent than in who reaches the most senior leadership positions.

Research and analysis of current trends suggest that, at the present rate of progress, gender parity in the most senior executive roles across Europe will not be achieved until well into the next century. That is a forecast which raises an uncomfortable question: if the will is there, why is it not enough?

Across our network of European managers, we meet managers and leaders every day who are engaged, thoughtful, and genuinely committed to making fair decisions. They would never knowingly treat people differently on the basis of gender, and they regard equality as a natural part of their role.

And that is precisely where things become complicated.

Psychological research reveals a recurring pattern: when we perceive ourselves as fair, we become less inclined to examine our own behaviour.

The sense of already being part of the solution can, paradoxically, make us less attentive to the ways in which we ourselves contribute to the problem. We measure ourselves against our intentions, not our effects. And in that gap, things happen that we do not see.

It shows up in small moments.

A woman raises an idea in a meeting and is met with silence. Minutes later, a male colleague makes the same point and the room listens. We fail to notice that we interpret the same quality differently depending on who displays it.

A man who is direct and assertive is perceived as decisive; a woman who does the same is perceived as difficult.

We do not realise that when we think “she’s probably not interested in that role,” we have already made the decision for her. These patterns are rarely dramatic. They are everyday occurrences, and for that reason, hard to detect.

The same mechanism operates at a societal level. Across Europe, where gender equality forms part of a shared political identity, it becomes harder to see where that equality falls short. When something is tied to our self-image, criticism is easily experienced as a challenge to who we are. That is psychologically uncomfortable. Environments with a strong shared set of values can therefore be the slowest to change, precisely because everyone feels they are already on the right side.

This is not a matter of ill will. It is a matter of how we are all shaped by the same system and the system does not require ill will in order to reproduce itself.

Systems sustain themselves. Not because anyone is actively defending them, but because they are constructed for continuity and familiarity. What is perceived as competence, what “feels right” in a recruitment process or promotion decision, all of this is shaped by structures that have long favoured particular kinds of experience and expression.

You can be as self-aware as you like and still make decisions that reproduce exactly what you say you want to change. Not because you intend to, but because you are following unwritten rules that are rarely questioned.

From a broader societal perspective, this means that change requires more than a shared commitment to the principle of equality. So long as incentives, career pathways, and cultural norms continue to favour stability and familiarity over reconsideration and the broadening of perspectives, gender equality risks remaining an aspiration rather than a reality.

Gender equality is therefore not, in the first instance, a question of individual attitudes. It is a question of how our processes are designed and whom they systematically advantage.

This is where managers and leaders genuinely can make a difference. Not as self-aware individuals trying to think the right thoughts, but as people with the power to change the rules of the game.

Managers operate within the structures of society, but they also have a mandate to influence how decisions are made and which criteria are allowed to govern them.

That requires processes that are more robust than gut instinct. Structures that make patterns visible before they crystallise into decisions. And an ongoing commitment to following up on the effects of their decisions, not merely the intentions behind them. But this presupposes that organisations give their managers and leaders the real conditions needed to do so: mandate, time, and structures that actually enable examination, rather than simply demanding it.

The speeches have been made. The posts have been liked and shared. Now comes the part that actually matters: the recurring, often seemingly mundane decisions that together shape organisations and, in turn, society.

It is in how we define competence, how we allocate responsibility, and how we open or close doors. That is where we decide whether gender equality remains a principle or becomes a practical reality. Not in good intentions.

 

Neval Bilici
Opinion Strategist for Sustainable Development