Employers are being urged to move beyond one-day celebrations and glossy slogans this International Women’s Day, and instead confront the everyday realities shaping women’s experiences at work.
Speaking to HRD ahead of 8 March, Indeed’s workplace expert Lauren Anderson and workplace psychologist Amanda Gordon said HR leaders have a critical window to reset how their organisations support women – not through morning teas and branded hashtags, but through honest reflection, hard data and genuine flexibility.
Anderson said the first step for employers is to “look inward” at who is actually doing the work of International Women’s Day inside the organisation. Too often, she said, the planning, coordination and emotional labour of IWD activities fall disproportionately to women, on top of their day jobs and unpaid caring roles. When that happens, what is framed as a celebration of equity can quietly reinforce the very imbalances it claims to address.
She also warned against performative celebration. According to Anderson, this is “a moment for honesty, not spin”. That means being transparent about the current state of gender representation, even when the numbers are uncomfortable. If women make up only a small share of the workforce, she argued, leaders should say so plainly – and then be equally clear about what they plan to do about it, by when, and how progress will be tracked.
In sectors such as construction and technical trades, where women remain structurally under-represented, Anderson believes employers need to speak candidly about the barriers that still exist. Downplaying challenges or overhyping small gains can damage trust. In her view, “trust is built through realism and accountability, not slogans,” and employees are acutely attuned to the gap between corporate messaging and lived experience.
Gordon said another trap for employers this International Women’s Day is treating “women” as a single, uniform group. She stressed that women in any workforce are as diverse as any other group of people, with no single set of needs or preferences. Some are mothers, others are child-free, some are partnered and others single; many carry significant caring responsibilities, while others do not. Some may be flourishing in their roles, while colleagues at the next desk are under strain from pressures that are invisible at work.
For HR leaders, recognising this diversity is not a branding issue but a practical one. One-size-fits-all programs risk missing the mark and can even entrench inequities if they are designed around narrow assumptions of what women “need”. Gordon argued that the goal should be to move beyond assumptions and “respond to the individuality” of employees, meeting them where they are and tailoring support so that it reflects real circumstances rather than stereotypes.
Both experts point to leading workplaces that are already moving in this direction. Anderson highlighted that psychological safety is becoming a cornerstone of genuine fairness. In these organisations, leaders are trained to create respectful environments, reporting channels are viewed as safe and trustworthy, and inappropriate behaviour carries clear consequences. This foundations-first approach, she said, allows women – and all employees – to speak up about issues without fear of reprisal, which in turn surfaces the information HR needs to drive change.
She noted that flexibility has also shifted from being a “special arrangement” for women to a core operating model. Employers ahead of the curve are treating flexible work as standard, not exceptional, and backing that up with gender-neutral parental leave policies that are actively promoted to men. The intention is not only to support women during key life stages but to normalise shared caring responsibilities over the long term. When men feel able and encouraged to take leave and work flexibly, Anderson said, it becomes far easier to dismantle the old assumption that women will be the default carers and, therefore, less committed employees.
Critically, these employers are getting serious about data. Rather than relying on broad headcount figures, they are tracking promotion rates, pay, attrition and engagement by gender and intersectional factors. They are also interrogating work modality and location data to see who progresses when working in-office versus remotely and who is exiting particular sites or teams. For Anderson, the key test is whether this data genuinely informs decisions. When numbers are collected only for reporting purposes, she argued, they quickly become a compliance exercise rather than a lever for change.
Gordon’s observations of leading workplaces echo this focus on structural enablers rather than symbolic gestures. She sees flexibility of work hours as central to allowing women with caring responsibilities to be successful and effective in all aspects of their lives. That flexibility, she said, must be paired with a compassionate response when employees need time to support others, reflecting a realistic understanding that work and life responsibilities are deeply interconnected.
She also emphasised the importance of meaningful connection at work. Employers that are “getting it right” are building genuine opportunities for employees to connect, easing loneliness and strengthening relationships. The point, she said, is not to offload more emotional labour onto women through unpaid mentoring or culture work, but to create structures where connection is supportive, voluntary and non-exploitative. When employees feel seen and part of a community, they are better able to bring their full selves to their roles.
On the question of progress, both experts are cautiously optimistic but clear that . Anderson described the gains of recent years as “uneven and fragile”. While representation has improved in many sectors, she said, equity of experience and influence still varies widely, even within the same organisation. And the forces driving inequality do not begin at the office gate. Social norms, caring expectations and household dynamics shape career outcomes long before a person enters the workforce, and continue to shape them every day they are in it.
This is precisely why Anderson argues that employers remain powerful shapers of culture. Workplace policies and practices can either reinforce traditional gender norms or help rebalance them. Flexibility and parental leave, for example, will only drive lasting change if men are supported and encouraged to use them without penalty. When men do not take up these entitlements, or fear career damage if they do, the message women receive is that their own caring responsibilities remain a professional liability.
Accountability, Anderson added, is what keeps equity from sliding down the agenda during economic or organisational pressure. Targets, leadership incentives and transparent reporting on gender outcomes create a counterweight to short-term cost-cutting instincts and ensure that diversity and inclusion remain core business priorities rather than optional extras.
Gordon said she is “impressed with the progress” many workplaces have made, but her personal litmus test for genuine equity is how performance is assessed. The organisations that stand out, she said, are those where women are evaluated on their delivery of outcomes – such as key performance indicators – regardless of whether they have needed time away from work to care for family. Acknowledging that women still more often shoulder caring responsibilities, while simultaneously recognising their capacity to be highly effective employees, is central to meaningful engagement and fairness.
For HR leaders, the message from both experts is that this International Women’s Day should not be measured by the quality of the morning tea, but by the honesty of the conversations and the robustness of the follow-through. Sustainable progress, they argue, will depend on a blend of organisational action and broader cultural shifts. That means listening carefully to the diversity of women’s experiences, embedding flexibility and psychological safety into everyday practice, and holding leaders accountable for outcomes – not only on 8 March, but on every ordinary day that follows.