Gender Equity Signaling and Organizational Culture: Evidence from International Women’s Day Communications

Gender Equity Signaling and Organizational Culture: Evidence from International Women’s Day Communications
International Women's Day has become a near-universal feature of corporate calendars: a day of panels, emails, campaigns, and celebrations designed to signal commitment to gender equity. Yet when we move beyond the official scripts and into the everyday language of employees, a more ambivalent story emerges. Women participate, they show up, they smile, but many no longer believe that March 8th will change anything fundamental about their working lives.
The Deep Fig Women's Day Study set out to understand this dissonance by analyzing over 1,200 text units drawn from internal communications, anonymous reflections, exit interviews, LinkedIn posts, and conversational transcripts across mid-sized and large organizations in India, Southeast Asia, and the UK. Using psycholinguistic patterning rather than sentiment scoring, the study examined not only what people say about Women's Day, but how they say it—their repetitions, hesitations, metaphors, and silences.
The question was not whether employees "like" Women's Day, but what the day reveals about organizational culture, power dynamics, and the gap between symbolic recognition and structural change. What emerges is not a story of rejection, but of flattening. Women describe Women's Day as "necessary but insufficient," a ritual that asks for their presence but not their truth. They speak of performing safer versions of themselves, of being visible without becoming powerful, of being urged to "give to gain" while already giving more than the system recognizes.
This white paper translates those findings into a framework for action. It maps four organizational archetypes, from Ritual Compliance to Structural Shifter, and outlines how Women's Day can move from a scripted performance of care to a diagnostic moment that triggers consequence. The aim is not to ignore Women's Day, but to reimagine it: from a day that consumes attention to a day that reconfigures systems, redistributes responsibility, and restores meaning to the act of being seen.
Methodology and Sample Anatomy
Study Design
The Deep Fig Women's Day Study was designed as a qualitative-dominant, mixed-methods inquiry into how International Women's Day is experienced by employees versus how it is performed by organizations. Rather than fielding a conventional satisfaction survey, the study analyzed naturally occurring language around Women's Day across multiple organizational contexts and geographies.
This allowed us to examine not only explicit opinions, but also the subtle discursive patterns that reveal resignation, performativity, and institutional stasis.
Corpus Composition
The primary dataset consists of over 1,200 discrete text units drawn from mid-sized and large organizations in India, Southeast Asia, and the United Kingdom. A "text unit" was defined as a coherent segment of written or transcribed speech that contained at least one complete thought about Women's Day.
Internal communications (emails, intranet posts, town-hall scripts)
Anonymous reflections from confidential listening exercises
Exit interview excerpts referencing Women's Day
Public LinkedIn and online forum posts
Informal conversational transcripts from facilitated discussions
Organizational Spread
Mid-sized to large organizations (500–20,000 employees) across five sectors: Technology, Financial Services, Manufacturing, Education, and NGOs
Geographic Coverage
India, Southeast Asia, and the United Kingdom, capturing variation across business models and organizational cultures
Participant Profile
Dominant voices: women employees at early-career through senior management levels, with male leaders providing comparative perspectives
A central methodological choice in this study was to rely on psycholinguistic patterning rather than sentiment scoring. Traditional sentiment analysis tools tend to flatten complex, ambivalent emotions into crude positive–negative–neutral categories, which is poorly suited to phenomena like reluctant participation, compulsory enthusiasm, or quiet withdrawal.
Psycholinguistic Patterning Approach
Instead of simple sentiment scoring, the analysis focused on patterns in language use that reveal deeper emotional and structural dynamics. We examined repetition of specific words and phrases, emotional distance through depersonalizing language, performativity markers describing visible but incongruent behavior, and references to memory and forgetting. Using these variables, we conducted iterative clustering of text units to identify recurring emotional signatures and narrative structures.
For example, the cluster labeled "necessary but insufficient" is not a count of respondents ticking a box; it represents a family of linguistic patterns characterized by resigned obligation, low expectation of change, and ongoing participation despite diminished hope. The analysis proceeded through open coding and theme detection, psycholinguistic clustering, quantification of dominant patterns, and comparative pattern analysis across sectors and seniority levels.
Why Not Sentiment Scores? We rejected simple sentiment scoring because Women's Day communications are often highly performative and therefore sentimentally ambiguous. A LinkedIn post that "celebrates" women may be linguistically positive while simultaneously reinforcing passive framing and erasing questions of power and accountability.
This study has several important limitations. While the corpus is both sizeable and diverse, it is not statistically representative of all organizations in these regions; its strength lies in depth of discourse analysis, not in population-level generalization. The psycholinguistic interpretations remain interpretive rather than mechanical and should be read as maps of meaning, not as definitive psychological diagnoses. Ethically, the study prioritized confidentiality and non-attribution. All quotes are anonymized or lightly edited to protect identities while maintaining semantic integrity.
Necessary but Insufficient: The Dominant Emotional Signature
Across the corpus, 72 percent of women used language that clustered into the category we term "necessary but insufficient." Women did not describe Women's Day as irrelevant or hostile; instead, they framed it as something they feel obligated to participate in, while expecting very little from it. Phrases like "it's fine," "it's something we have to do," and "it's better than nothing" recur alongside a deeper acknowledgment that the day has limited impact on the structural realities of their working lives.
This pattern reflects a shift from hopeful engagement to managed resignation. Women continue to show up for panels, attend talks, and appear in communication campaigns, but they do so with a sharply reduced belief that these rituals will translate into tangible change. As one senior leader put it, "I don't hate Women's Day. I just don't expect anything from it anymore."
72%
Necessary but Insufficient
Women describing Women's Day in terms of obligated participation with limited expectations
63%
Performance Tax
Women reporting they perform a safer, more agreeable version of themselves
41%
Stalled Progression
Explicitly linking Women's Day to phrases like "same place" and "no movement"
Emotional Signature: Quiet Withdrawal, Not Open Anger
Contrary to common assumptions, the dominant emotional tone in the study is not anger or rejection. Instead, we observe a more subdued, but arguably more consequential, pattern: quiet withdrawal of hope. Women describe themselves as tired rather than outraged, "realistic" rather than "cynical," and "resigned" rather than "inspired." This is visible in three recurrent linguistic moves: softened disengagement ("I attend, I clap, but I don't expect anything"), downplaying of disappointment ("It's nice, but it doesn't really change anything"), and futureless framing ("We do this every year; nothing really happens after").
In psychological terms, this cluster resembles learned resignation: repeated exposure to symbolic recognition without structural consequence leads individuals to conserve emotional energy, withdrawing investment in change while continuing to comply with surface expectations.
"Necessary" – What Women Still Value
The "necessary" in "necessary but insufficient" is not rhetorical. Women identified several aspects of Women's Day that they still consider worth preserving:
A legitimate moment to name gender as an organizational topic, especially in cultures where it is otherwise marginalized
Opportunities for connection and visibility, particularly for women in early-career stages or in male-majority teams
Occasional encounters with role models or stories that resonate, even if the system around them remains unchanged
"Insufficient" – When Ritual Replaces Change
The "insufficient" side of the signature emerges when women describe the repetitive, low-consequence nature of Women's Day programming:
Panels with similar talking points, year after year
Inspirational emails that celebrate "strength" while promotion timelines still favor men
Workshops and talks that generate warm feedback, but no policy shifts or change in meeting dynamics
"It reminds me how far I've come. And how far I haven't."
— Analyst, Financial Services
The result is a sense that Women's Day has become a performance they give to their organizations rather than a moment they experience for themselves. Women are invited to be visible, but the underlying constraints—biased evaluation criteria, unequal flexibility, informal networks that gate opportunity—persist. In this configuration, the day functions as a contrast effect: it throws the gap between symbolic recognition and structural inertia into sharper relief.
Sector and Role Nuances
While the "necessary but insufficient" pattern is widespread, its expression varies by sector and seniority. In technology and financial services, women in mid- and senior-level roles were more likely to connect Women's Day explicitly to stalled progression, using phrases such as "still waiting," "same level," and "no movement." In NGOs and education, women more often emphasized the emotional labor of holding space and mentoring others on Women's Day, even as their own advancement remained slow.
Early-career women tended to describe the day with slightly more optimism, focusing on visibility and networking; however, even in this group, the language often included cautious qualifiers ("hopefully this translates into something," "maybe this opens doors"). Across roles, a clear pattern emerges: the longer women have been in the system, the more likely they are to describe Women's Day as a ritualized formality rather than a catalyst.
Theoretical Lens: Emotional Labor and Institutional Trust Conceptually, the "necessary but insufficient" cluster sits at the intersection of emotional labor and institutional trust. Women are asked not only to participate in Women's Day, but to do so with visible enthusiasm—smiling, sharing stories, expressing gratitude—regardless of how little changes afterwards. This requires an ongoing regulation of emotion and expression, which is classic emotional labor.
For organizations, the "necessary but insufficient" signature is not a neutral finding; it is an early warning signal. When a majority of women experience Women's Day in this way, it suggests women are still willing to participate, but their emotional investment is declining. The organization's symbolic actions are outpacing its structural commitments, and over time, this gap will undermine the credibility of any gender initiative, not just Women's Day programming. Organizations that treat "necessary but insufficient" as diagnostic can use Women's Day as a starting point for redesign—shifting from one-off gestures to visible changes in policy, progression, and everyday power dynamics.
Performing Safety: The Public–Private Split and the Performance Tax
The Public–Private Split
When women were asked how they participate publicly in Women's Day versus how they experience it privately, a stark split emerged. 63 percent reported that, on Women's Day, they perform a version of themselves that feels safer, more agreeable, and less candid than their actual perspectives. This pattern was especially pronounced among women in mid-management, where visibility is high, but formal authority and psychological safety remain constrained.
The language women used to describe this split is strikingly consistent: "You clap, you smile, you attend the talk. You don't say what you're actually thinking because you don't want to be 'that woman' on Women's Day." Outwardly, they comply with the expected script; inwardly, they manage frustration, skepticism, and fatigue.
"That Woman" as Social Warning
The phrase "that woman" appears repeatedly across the dataset, rarely defined, yet universally understood. To be "that woman" is to be marked as difficult, ungrateful, or divisive—particularly in a moment that the organization frames as celebratory and benevolent. Women describe an acute awareness that voicing ambivalence or critique on Women's Day can carry a reputational cost that outlasts the event itself.
Compulsory Enthusiasm
This dynamic produces what the study terms compulsory enthusiasm—the expectation that women will perform visible positivity regardless of their underlying experience. This involves continuous self-monitoring in public spaces, code-switching between private honesty and public compliance, and suppressing critique to avoid being seen as "negative" or "ungrateful."
The Performance Tax
We refer to this invisible burden as the performance tax of Women's Day. 63 percent of women in the study indicated that they pay this tax by performing safety and gratitude, even when the day does little to shift the structural conditions they navigate.
This tax is "paid" in three main currencies:
Energy – the mental and emotional effort required to stay "on script" across events, panels, and informal conversations
Authenticity – the gradual shrinking of what can be said out loud without risk, leading to a sense of self-betrayal or emotional numbness
Voice – the strategic withholding of critique or complexity, which over time teaches women that speaking honestly is unsafe or futile
"I didn't feel like translating my life into something palatable this year."
— Mid-level manager reflecting on Women's Day participation
Long-Term Costs: Trust, Participation, and Cynicism
The long-term costs of the performance tax are significant. Women describe a gradual erosion of trust in organizational listening: after multiple cycles of speaking cautiously with little visible consequence, many choose to withdraw rather than re-invest. This withdrawal shows up as reduced willingness to participate in future listening exercises or "open forums," a shift from speaking in public forums to venting in private backchannels, and a deepening cynicism about genuine efforts towards inclusion, with Women's Day becoming a symbol of "conversations that go nowhere."
This pattern matters because it does not only affect Women's Day. When employees learn that careful, emotionally costly participation yields minimal change, they generalize this lesson to other initiatives—culture surveys, diversity taskforces, leadership roundtables. The performance tax thus undermines the organization's wider change infrastructure, not just its annual celebration.
This visualization captures how the public–private split compounds over time, moving from surface-level performance through suppressed authenticity to eventual disengagement from organizational change efforts.
Conceptual Lens: Safety, Performativity, and Institutional Power Women's Day is framed as a space "for" women, but the terms of participation are often set by those who hold structural power. Safety is conditional: women are safe as long as they remain on the celebratory script. Performativity is rewarded: visible enthusiasm receives praise, while complex or critical voices are quietly discouraged. Power remains unexamined: leaders can "create space" for women to speak without interrogating why that space doesn't exist more robustly on the other 364 days.
For organizations, the presence of a strong performance tax is a signal that Women's Day is functioning more as a stage than as a laboratory for change. It suggests that employees do not experience Women's Day spaces as genuinely safe for complex truths, the organization is unintentionally training women to self-censor in precisely the forums where their insight is most needed, and emotional labor is being extracted without recognition, compensation, or structural follow-through.
Reducing the performance tax requires more than encouraging women to "speak up." It demands visible commitments: protecting those who raise uncomfortable truths, acting on what is heard, and signaling that critique on Women's Day is not a breach of etiquette but a legitimate contribution to organizational learning. Without this shift, Women's Day risks becoming a yearly exercise in managed performance, where women's truth is invited, but only in edited form.
Visibility Without Power: The Contrast Effect
When Recognition Highlights Stagnation
The data reveals that Women's Day often intensifies, rather than resolves, a core tension: being highly visible but structurally underpowered. 41 percent of women explicitly linked Women's Day to stalled progression, using phrases such as "same place," "no movement," and "still waiting." For these respondents, the day functions less as a celebration and more as an annual reminder of how little has shifted in their actual career trajectories.
In the last 12 months, women in the dataset reported frequent visibility in panels, newsletters, and town halls, while promotion data, where referenced, showed that men continued to outpace women in progression to senior roles. This disconnect produces what we call the contrast effect: the brighter the spotlight on Women's Day, the starker the shadows around unchanged structures.
High Visibility
Women being featured in internal and external panels, highlighted in campaigns, and held up as "faces" of organizational inclusivity
Low Advancement
Significantly lower rates of women being promoted into senior decision-making roles compared to male counterparts over similar timeframes
Invisible Labor and Its Limited Rewards
A significant part of this tension lies in invisible labor, which the study shows is critical for team functioning yet has minimal impact on promotion decisions compared to direct contributions and self-promotion. Women describe mentoring junior colleagues, especially other women; holding emotional space during Women's Day and beyond—listening, de-escalating, translating organizational messages; and doing the "culture work" that keeps teams cohesive, events running, and initiatives alive.
While invisible labor is central to everyday organizational life, it is rarely coded as promotable contribution. It is often uncounted in workload models, appears nowhere in formal KPIs or promotion criteria, and is frequently described as "extra," "voluntary," or "good citizenship," even when teams rely on it to function.
The Contrast Effect
Women's Day becomes a mirror that magnifies contradiction. Instead of masking inequality, symbolic recognition throws the lack of structural movement into sharp relief.
"It reminds me how far I've come. And how far I haven't."
The Emotional Logic of the Contrast Effect
The contrast effect is emotionally powerful because it forces a comparison between what is said and what is lived. On Women's Day, women hear that they are "integral," "valued," and "the backbone of the organization." Yet many can point to concrete, unresolved discrepancies: male peers with shorter tenures progressing faster, stretch assignments and high-visibility projects allocated through informal networks that still skew male, and flexibility policies that exist on paper but require gendered justification in practice.
The day thus becomes a mirror that magnifies contradiction. Instead of masking inequality, symbolic recognition throws the lack of structural movement into sharp relief. Over time, this erodes the credibility of institutional praise: the more effusive the language on March 8th, the more hollow it can feel against a backdrop of unchanged power dynamics.
41%
Explicit Links to Stalled Progression
Women using phrases like "same place," "no movement," or "still waiting" when describing career trajectory
75%
Invisible Labor Uncompensated
Women's "giving" activities experienced as unrecognized contribution to organizational functioning
30%
Limited Promotion Impact
Women feeling that emotional and cultural labor meaningfully factored into advancement decisions
Who Feels It Most: Tenure and Seniority Effects
The contrast effect is particularly acute for women who have been in their organizations for multiple years and have accumulated both achievements and disappointments. These women have watched junior male colleagues advance past them, have contributed to projects and initiatives that were later credited to others, and have repeatedly taken on mentoring, DEI-related tasks, and event work that, while praised, did not translate into formal advancement.
For them, Women's Day acts as an annual audit: a moment to silently tally how many cycles of celebration they have survived without a corresponding increase in power, pay, or decision rights. In contrast, early-career women, while not immune to the tension, often interpret visibility with more tentative hope, seeing it as a potential springboard—even as the patterns described by their seniors suggest otherwise.
Conceptual Lens: Symbolic Recognition vs Structural Power The visibility-without-power dynamic aligns with broader theories of symbolic recognition and structural inequality. Symbolic recognition confers status at the level of representation—being seen, named, celebrated—without necessarily altering the underlying distribution of resources, authority, or risk. Women's Day, as currently practiced in many organizations, sits squarely in this zone.
For organizations, the contrast effect is a warning that recognition strategies have outpaced structural reforms. It indicates that women are increasingly sensitive to gaps between celebratory language and actual opportunity structures, overuse of symbolic visibility without corresponding changes in promotion and power can deepen cynicism rather than build engagement, and invisible labor needs to be re-coded as promotable contribution, not merely praised on Women's Day.
Addressing this requires a shift from asking, "How can we feature women more on March 8th?" to asking, "How does our year-round architecture of progression, evaluation, and decision-making either amplify or nullify what we say on that day?" Until that shift happens, Women's Day will continue to highlight the gap between who is seen and who decides.
The Allyship Paradox: Facilitators, Not Participants
Men as Supporters, Not Subjects
Male colleagues' language around Women's Day clustered very differently from women's. 58 percent framed the day as an opportunity to "support" women or "show allyship," while only 19 percent used language that placed themselves inside the problem—for example, talking about unlearning, relearning, or changing their own behavior. The remaining 23 percent did not engage with Women's Day at all, either in internal or visible channels.
This creates an allyship paradox. Men often appear prominently in Women's Day communication—as introducers, moderators, champions—but most do so from the position of facilitators rather than participants in gendered systems. They stand at the edge of the problem, offering support, without fully acknowledging that they are also shaped and advantaged by the very structures under discussion.
58%
Support-Focused Language
Men framing Women's Day as opportunity to "support" or "show allyship"
19%
Self-Implicating Language
Men placing themselves inside the problem, discussing behavior change
23%
No Engagement
Men not participating in Women's Day activities or conversations
"Creating Space" and Its Hidden Assumptions
One recurrent phrase in the corpus encapsulates this paradox: "It's important to create space for women to speak." On its surface, this sounds generous and progressive. Yet embedded within it are powerful assumptions:
That space naturally belongs to men and must be consciously "created" for women
That men are gatekeepers and providers of opportunity, even in conversations about equity
That Women's Day is a special exception in which women are temporarily invited into a spotlight that is otherwise not theirs
What often goes unexamined is why this space is contingent on the calendar and on male intentionality.
The Comfort of Externalized Allyship
The data suggests that many men prefer forms of allyship that keep them comfortably external to the hardest questions. Common patterns include:
Event-based allyship – showing up to Women's Day panels, sharing supportive posts, endorsing campaigns
Language of encouragement – urging women to "lean in," "take more space," or "speak up," without interrogating how the environment penalizes them when they do
Safe solidarity – aligning with generic statements about equality without naming specific practices they are willing to change
Women in the study noted that men who "create space" on March 8th are often the same colleagues who interrupt more in meetings, dominate informal networks, or sponsor mostly male peers on the other 364 days.
When Allyship Recenters Men
A further paradox emerges in how organizations narrate male allyship. Women's Day campaigns frequently spotlight men who "support women," positioning them as enlightened exceptions. Leadership communications praise male leaders who "champion women," "mentor women," or "drive inclusion," often with stories that keep men at the narrative center.
This produces two unintended effects: it recenters male agency in a story ostensibly about women's experience and power, and it lowers the bar for male engagement, framing basic expectations (not interrupting, giving credit fairly, supporting flexible work) as exceptional acts worthy of celebration. Women in the dataset rarely object to allyship per se; what they question is allyship that feels like a performance rather than a redistribution of risk and responsibility.
This diagram illustrates the gap between allyship as performance—highly visible but structurally light—and allyship as accountability, which involves sustained behavior change and genuine redistribution of opportunity.
Non-Engagement: The Silent 23 Percent
The 23 percent of men who did not engage with Women's Day at all form an important part of the picture. Their absence appears in multiple ways: no participation in events, even when open to all; no visible commentary or reflection in internal channels; and very limited acknowledgment of Women's Day in team communications.
For women, this silence carries its own message: that gender equity is optional, peripheral work, not a shared organizational priority. The combination of highly visible "ally" figures and a sizeable group of disengaged men reinforces the sense that women's advancement remains contingent on individual goodwill rather than embedded in organizational design.
Conceptual Lens: Accountability vs Performance Analytically, the allyship paradox hinges on the distinction between performance and accountability. Performance-oriented allyship is highly visible, emotionally affirmative, and light on specific commitments. Accountability-oriented allyship, by contrast, centers questions like: What am I willing to change in how I allocate opportunity? What risks will I share? How will I measure my impact beyond Women's Day appearances?
For organizations, the allyship paradox signals that gender equity is still being treated as something done for women by men, rather than a shared system of accountability that includes men as full participants in both problem and solution. Allyship needs to be reframed from "supporting women" to "changing systems we all inhabit," with explicit expectations for male leaders. Recognition of allyship should be tied to behavioral evidence over time, not just visibility on March 8th. Communications should be designed to avoid recentering men in a narrative about women's experience, while still holding men responsible for their part in structural change.
"Give to Gain": When Empowerment Becomes Burden
Intention vs Interpretation
The theme "Give to Gain" generated one of the strongest dissonance signals in the dataset. Organizations framed it as a message of empowerment and reciprocity, with 52 percent of institutional communications positioning "giving" as a pathway to growth, impact, and collective success. In contrast, 48 percent of women who referenced this framing interpreted it as an additional moral burden—another expectation layered onto already heavy emotional and organizational labor.
This divergence is more than a semantic disagreement. It reveals a fundamental misalignment between how organizations imagine women's contribution and how women experience the cumulative weight of being asked to give.
Organizational Frame
52% of communications position "giving" as empowerment and pathway to growth
Women's Experience
48% interpret "give to gain" as additional moral burden on top of existing labor
What "Give" Activates for Women
Across women's reflections, the word "give" did not primarily evoke opportunity, agency, or uplift. Instead, it repeatedly activated associations with specific forms of emotional and relational labor:
Mentoring – supporting junior colleagues, especially women, often outside formal role descriptions
Holding space – listening to others' experiences, mediating conflict, absorbing distress in teams
Supporting – being the unofficial source of encouragement, advice, and relational glue
Patience – tolerating slow change, repeated explanations, and resistance to gender conversations
Quantitatively, 40 percent of mentions of "give" in this theme related to mentoring responsibilities, often uncompensated and unrecognized. Another 25 percent highlighted ongoing support roles, frequently emotional, for colleagues and teams.
The Core Tension
"I'm already giving. Every day. So when I hear 'give to gain,' I wonder who exactly is gaining."
— NGO professional
For many, the answer seemed clear: the organization gains reputational capital and smoother functioning, while women absorb the cost in time, energy, and delayed progression.
The Moralization of Labor
What women found particularly troubling was the moral valence attached to "give." In corporate messaging, "Give to Gain" framed giving as a virtue test: good, growth-oriented women give; through their giving, they will eventually gain. Yet the study shows that 75 percent of "Give to Gain" activities were experienced as uncompensated labor, only 30 percent of women felt that these "giving" activities meaningfully factored into promotion decisions, and 60 percent reported increased exhaustion linked to expectations embedded in "Give to Gain."
75%
Uncompensated
"Give to Gain" activities experienced as unrecognized labor
30%
Promotable Impact
Women who felt giving activities factored into advancement
60%
Increased Exhaustion
Women reporting fatigue linked to "Give to Gain" expectations
From Organizational Responsibility to Individual Virtue
The "Give to Gain" framing subtly shifts responsibility for change. Instead of positioning equity as an organizational obligation—requiring redesign of systems, processes, and power structures—it suggests that women's advancement depends on their willingness to give even more: give more mentoring, give more patience, give more emotional labor to hold teams together, give more of their stories and experiences to educate others.
Women who resist or step back from these expectations risk being seen as less committed, less collaborative, or insufficiently "growth-minded." Women who comply often find themselves exhausted, with little evidence that their extra giving is converting into structural gain—either for themselves or for those who come after them. In effect, what should be an organizational responsibility is reframed as an individual character question: are you willing to give?
This visualization captures the feedback loop that intensifies over time, where "Give to Gain" becomes, in practice, "give to sustain the system," with no guarantee of structural gain for the givers.
Conceptual Lens: Gendered Expectations and Invisible Work Analytically, this theme sits squarely in the domain of gendered expectations of care and self-sacrifice. In many organizational cultures, women are implicitly cast as carriers of community, expected to smooth relational friction, mentor generously, and "keep teams together." The "Give to Gain" mantra taps into these existing gender norms, cloaking them in the language of empowerment.
For organizations, the "Give to Gain" dissonance signals a need to rethink how they talk about and reward contribution. Appeals to women to "give" must be paired with clear commitments: recognition, formal weighting in evaluations, and tangible impact on progression. Emotional and relational labor should be explicitly named and accounted for in workload and promotion frameworks, not just praised ceremonially. Messaging should shift from "Give to Gain" to "We must redesign to share the load and redistribute gain"—moving the focus from women's virtue to organizational responsibility.
The Memory Problem: Forgettable by Design
Low Recall, Low Consequence
When respondents were asked to recall past Women's Day initiatives, only 14 percent could clearly remember a specific program or intervention. Most events were described as "pleasant but forgettable"—nice in the moment, but leaving little trace in memory or in organizational behavior. One participant summarized this gap with painful clarity: "I remember the cupcakes. I don't remember the conversation."
This low recall is not a trivial issue of branding; it is a proxy for impact. If Women's Day initiatives are not memorable, they are unlikely to be meaningful. When neither content nor outcome can be recalled, it suggests that the day has functioned as a bounded event—consumed, enjoyed, and then discarded—rather than as a catalyst for any enduring shift.
14%
Clear Memory
Respondents who could recall a specific Women's Day program or intervention
86%
Forgettable
Events described as pleasant but leaving little lasting impression
Designed for Consumption, Not Continuity
The study finds that most Women's Day programming is designed to be self-contained: events and campaigns with clear start and end points, minimal follow-through mechanisms, and no built-in structural accountability. Typical patterns include:
One-off panels and talks with no documented commitments or revisit points
Email campaigns that arrive, are skimmed, and disappear, with no linkage to policy or practice
Celebratory events (cupcakes, gifts, social media posts) with no articulated next step beyond the day itself
In this design, Women's Day is experienced as a consumable product rather than a change process.
What People Remember: Behavioral Shift
The exceptions in the dataset are instructive. The few Women's Day initiatives that respondents did remember clearly shared a common feature: they were linked to some form of behavioral or structural shift. For example, women recalled:
A listening circle that directly led to a change in meeting norms
A discussion that resulted in a revised flexibility policy
Commitments made publicly by leaders that were subsequently tracked and reported back
Memory was strongest where Women's Day was treated as the starting point of a process, not as an isolated event.
"I remember the cupcakes. I don't remember the conversation."
— Survey respondent capturing the memory gap
Individuals vs Institutions: Divergent Views on "Meaningful"
A striking divergence emerges between individuals' and institutions' views of what counts as meaningful programming. Individuals rated experiential formats—listening circles, story-sharing sessions, reflective spaces—as the most meaningful. These formats allowed for depth, nuance, and the expression of difficult truths.
Institutions, however, expressed the highest levels of anxiety around these same formats, citing fears of "emotional spillover" or "unpredictability." One question, repeated in different forms across leadership conversations, captures this anxiety: "What if people say things we're not ready to act on?" This question reveals the core tension: Women's Day has become a moment where organizations flirt with listening but retreat before consequence.
Individuals Value Depth
Listening circles, story-sharing sessions, and reflective spaces rated as most meaningful by participants
Institutions Fear Unpredictability
Leadership expressing anxiety about "emotional spillover" and saying things they're not ready to act on
Conversations That Go Nowhere
The fatigue detected in the study is not about gender conversations themselves. Women did not report being tired of talking about gender, equity, or work. Instead, they reported being tired of conversations that go nowhere—spaces where stories are shared, emotions are surfaced, and then nothing happens.
Over time, this breeds a distinctive form of skepticism. Participants come to see listening sessions as symbolic rituals rather than genuine inquiries. They calibrate their contributions accordingly, offering safer, less demanding input to avoid emotional exposure with no payoff. The organization, observing the moderated tone, may wrongly conclude that issues are mild or resolved. This cycle ensures that Women's Day remains forgettable by design: carefully contained, emotionally managed, and structurally inconsequential.
Women's Day as Diagnostic, Not Celebration One of the most important reframings in the study is the idea that Women's Day is no longer a celebration in the cultural sense; it is a diagnostic. It reveals how much truth an organization can tolerate before becoming defensive, how safely women can speak without being managed or penalized, and whether listening is treated as a gesture or as an ongoing responsibility tied to action.
For organizations, the memory problem is a call to redesign Women's Day around continuity and consequence. Initiatives should be built with explicit follow-through mechanisms—clear commitments, timelines, and accountability owners. Experiential formats that surface real issues must be paired with visible responses, even if partial or iterative, to avoid becoming extraction exercises. The yardstick for success should shift from attendance and satisfaction ratings to traceable changes in behavior, policy, and everyday practice. Until Women's Day is anchored in what happens after March 8th, it will remain largely forgettable—pleasant in the moment, but structurally silent.
Organizational Archetypes and Maturity Levels
Using the linguistic and behavioral patterns surfaced in the study, we can locate organizations along a maturity continuum of how they engage with Women's Day: from ritual compliance to structural shift. These archetypes are not fixed labels but mirrors—diagnostic profiles that help leaders recognize dominant tendencies in their own systems.
01
Ritual Compliance
Minimum effort to signal alignment with inclusion norms
02
Anxious Listener
Experimenting with listening but fearful of consequence
03
Emerging Reckoner
Treating Women's Day as diagnostic and linking to change
04
Structural Shifter
Year-round architecture with Women's Day as checkpoint
Archetype 1: The Ritual Compliance Organization
Core Pattern
Women's Day is treated as a compliance moment—something "we have to do" to signal minimal alignment with inclusion norms. Communications are polished but highly scripted, recycling the same five verbs—celebrate, honor, recognize, empower, support—year after year.
Typical Behaviors
Reliance on email blasts and generic events (panels, inspirational talks) with little variation over time
Heavy focus on aesthetics: banners, hashtags, social media posts, symbolic gestures (flowers, cupcakes, gifts)
No clear link between Women's Day and policy, progression, or practice
Linguistic Signals
Repetition of the same phrases; employees describe it as "the same email every year. Different font, same feeling." Absence of verbs of change—no "restructure, redistribute, rethink, repair"; instead, passive, self-congratulatory language.
Experience for Women: Emotional signature: "necessary but insufficient," sliding into resignation. Women show up but no longer invest hope; Women's Day becomes background noise.
Archetype 2: The Anxious Listener Organization
Core Pattern
These organizations want to move beyond ritual and experiment with listening formats—story-sharing, panels with Q&A, internal surveys—but are anxious about what they might hear.
Typical Behaviors
Piloting listening circles or reflective spaces, often framed as "safe spaces," but without robust follow-through
Leadership concern about "emotional spillover" or "unpredictability" in open forums
Hesitation to invite critique unless the response is already known or easily managed
Linguistic Signals
Questions like "What if people say things we're not ready to act on?" appear in leadership conversations. Communications acknowledge "the need to listen" but remain vague on commitments.
Experience for Women
Women are cautiously willing to engage, but repeated experiences of "conversations that go nowhere" lead to fatigue. Memory is weak unless a clear behavioral shift follows; otherwise, events blend into a pattern of extraction without consequence.
"What if people say things we're not ready to act on?"
— Recurring question revealing organizational anxiety about genuine listening
Willing to Listen
Organizations experiment with listening formats and story-sharing
Anxious About Action
Fear of unpredictability and commitment prevents follow-through
Vague on Commitments
Communications acknowledge need without specific accountability
Archetype 3: The Emerging Reckoner Organization
Core Pattern
These organizations begin to treat Women's Day as a diagnostic, not a performance. They accept that discomfort is part of truth-telling and start to link what is heard to concrete changes.
Typical Behaviors
Using Women's Day to surface specific system issues—promotion patterns, flexibility norms, meeting dynamics, invisible labor
Making public commitments (e.g., pay audits, progression reviews, no-interruption norms) and reporting back on progress
Experimenting with new language beyond the standard verbs—introducing terms like "redistribute," "repair," "rethink," "rebuild"
Key Shift
From performance to diagnosis. Women's Day becomes a checkpoint that triggers visible, traceable action.
"Let's see if they actually do this."
— Emerging tone of guarded curiosity
Linguistic Signals
Leaders explicitly name gaps and contradictions (e.g., visibility vs promotion rates, performance tax, "give to gain" burden). Internal communication invites employees to treat Women's Day as a moment to confront stasis, not just to celebrate progress.
Experience for Women
Emotional tone shifts from pure resignation to guarded curiosity: "Let's see if they actually do this." Women begin to recall specific Women's Day moments because they led to visible follow-through.
Diagnostic Approach
Surface specific system issues on Women's Day
Public Commitments
Make explicit promises with timelines
Report Progress
Track and communicate outcomes visibly
Archetype 4: The Structural Shifter Organization
Core Pattern
Here, Women's Day is integrated into a wider, year-round architecture of gender equity. The day serves as a checkpoint and accelerator, not the primary site of action.
Clear Equity Goals
Published equity goals (e.g., promotion ratios, pay equity, representation targets) that are revisited annually around March 8th
Governance Integration
Women's Day programming directly feeds into governance—board updates, talent review cycles, policy changes
Invisible Labor Recognized
Mentoring, culture work, and DEI contributions formally recognized in evaluation and progression frameworks
Linguistic Signals
Communications speak in terms of accountability, redistribution, and consequence, not just appreciation. Male leaders describe themselves as participants in the problem and solution, not merely supporters or facilitators.
Experience for Women
Emotional signature moves towards engaged realism: women still see gaps, but also see evidence that what they say can change structures. Women's Day is memorable for decisions taken, not just events held.
This diagram illustrates how Structural Shifter organizations embed Women's Day within a continuous improvement cycle, where insights directly inform governance decisions and policy changes throughout the year.
The Maturity Journey These archetypes represent a developmental pathway. Organizations can assess where they currently sit and identify specific shifts needed to move forward. The goal is not perfection, but progress: from ritual to listening, from listening to reckoning, from reckoning to structural transformation.
From Ritual to Reckoning: Design Principles and Tools
The study does not call for the abolition of Women's Day; it calls for its transformation. Moving from ritual to reckoning means treating March 8th not as a performance of care, but as a lever for structural change. The following design principles offer a practical framework for organizations ready to move beyond symbolic gestures.
Diagnostic Infrastructure
Treat Women's Day as revealing systemic patterns
Listening with Consequence
Anchor every listening format in action
Recognition Plus Power
Link visibility to actual influence and opportunity
Shared Accountability
Reframe allyship as participation in change
Redistribute the Load
De-moralize giving and share responsibility
Design Principle 1: Treat Women's Day as Diagnostic Infrastructure
The Shift
From "How do we celebrate women?" to "What does Women's Day reveal about our systems?"
Practices
Use Women's Day as the formal start of an annual equity cycle: diagnose, commit, act, report
Explicitly name it in governance documents as a diagnostic checkpoint
Track recurring themes—performance tax, visibility without power, "give to gain"—and map them to system levers
Design Principle 2: Anchor Listening in Consequence
From "safe spaces to share" to "responsible spaces that trigger action."
For every listening format, define in advance: what will be in scope to act on, who is accountable for responding, when and how the organization will report back
Publicly acknowledge limits: "We may not fix everything this year, but here are the 2–3 commitments we will act on"
Make a habit of naming what changed the following year
Design Principles: Power, Accountability, and Redistribution
1
Design Principle 3: Redesign Recognition to Include Power
Shift from visibility as the endpoint to visibility as a gateway to influence. Link Women's Day visibility to sponsorship and opportunity: every woman featured is invited into at least one decision-making space in the following year. Review promotion and succession pipelines around March 8th with an explicit lens on who is visible vs who is advancing. Recode invisible labor—mentoring, culture work, DEI efforts—as formally recognized contribution with weight in evaluations.
2
Design Principle 4: Reframe Allyship as Shared Accountability
Shift from men as supportive facilitators to men as accountable participants in change. Ask male leaders to publish specific behavior commitments (e.g., "no all-male panels," "track who I sponsor," "ask who is not in the room and why"). Evaluate leaders, regardless of gender, on objective equity metrics (promotion patterns, pay decisions, feedback sentiment), not just on Women's Day visibility. Avoid narratives that celebrate men for basic fairness; instead, focus on sustained patterns of equitable decision-making.
3
Design Principle 5: De-Moralize "Giving" and Re-Distribute the Load
Shift from "Give to Gain" as a moral expectation on women to "We must redistribute effort and gain across the system." Map all "giving" activities (mentoring, listening, DEI work, emotional labor roles) and identify who is doing them today. Build these activities into role definitions, workload allocations, and reward systems so that they are not invisible extras. Ensure that responsibility for "giving" is distributed across genders and seniority, not defaulted to women.
Deep Fig Insight Brief
The Deep Fig Insight Brief serves as a 2-page executive translation of this study for HR heads, CHROs, and business leaders. It should:
Summarize the core emotional signatures
Show the four archetypes and ask leaders to locate their organization honestly
Offer a short list of non-negotiable commitments for moving one maturity level up
This becomes the entry document in consulting conversations: a compact, provocative mirror.
Women's Day Listening Index
The Women's Day Listening Index is a diagnostic tool that helps institutions "recognize themselves without being put on trial." Possible dimensions:
Emotional signature – extent of resignation, hope, or engagement
Performativity load – degree of performance tax and public–private split
Language evolution – movement beyond the five verbs into verbs of change
Structural linkage – connection between Women's Day insights and policy changes
Shared accountability – degree to which men and leaders place themselves inside the problem
Where You Are Now
Identify archetype and Listening Index scores
What You Must Stop
Purely cosmetic communications, one-off events with no follow-through, reliance on "give to gain" narratives
What You Must Start
Diagnostic use of March 8th, explicit commitments, re-coding invisible labor, accountability-based allyship
What You Must Redesign
Promotion criteria, feedback systems, meeting norms, leadership evaluation to incorporate what Women's Day reveals
Conclusion: From Performance to Power
The Deep Fig Women's Day Study makes one thing unmistakably clear: the problem is not that Women's Day exists, but that it has too often been decoupled from consequence. When 72 percent of women describe the day as "necessary but insufficient," and 63 percent report performing a safer version of themselves to avoid being "that woman," they are not rejecting recognition; they are signaling that recognition without power, listening without follow-through, and visibility without leverage have reached their limit.
Across sectors and geographies, the same patterns recur. Organizations rely on a narrow repertoire of celebratory verbs; women shoulder a growing performance tax; invisible labor keeps teams functioning but rarely counts towards promotion; allyship remains more performative than accountable. Women's Day, in this configuration, functions less as a celebration and more as an annual stress test of institutional honesty: how much truth can the organization tolerate, and what, if anything, will it do with what it hears?
Diagnostic Infrastructure
Treat March 8th as a recurring checkpoint that examines stasis and triggers specific changes in policy and power
Listening with Consequence
Move from conversations that extract stories to responsible spaces that produce traceable action
Power, Not Just Visibility
Link recognition to actual influence, progression, and redistribution of opportunity
Shared Accountability
Reframe allyship from facilitation to participation in structural change with measurable outcomes
The path forward does not lie in louder campaigns or more elaborate events. It lies in treating Women's Day as diagnostic infrastructure—a recurring point in the year when organizations commit to examining stasis, confronting contradictions, and triggering specific changes in policy, practice, and power. The archetypes and design principles outlined in this paper offer one route: move from ritual compliance to anxious listening, from anxious listening to emerging reckoning, and ultimately to structural shifting, where March 8th is one node in a year-round architecture of equity.
The women in this study are not asking for cupcakes or another panel. They are asking for consequence. They are asking for conversations that continue past March 8th, for truths that do not have to be translated into palatable stories to be heard, and for systems that respond to their experience with something more than a different font on the same message.
Whether Women's Day remains a ritual or becomes a reckoning will depend on whether organizations are willing to let what is said on that day rearrange what is possible on every other. The choice is not between celebrating women or changing systems—it is between performing care and demonstrating it through consequence. Organizations that choose the latter will find that Women's Day transforms from an annual performance into a catalyst for enduring structural change.
The archetypes presented in this study—Ritual Compliance, Anxious Listener, Emerging Reckoner, and Structural Shifter—are not judgments but invitations. They invite leaders to locate their organizations honestly, to name the gap between symbolic gesture and structural reality, and to commit to the specific, visible actions that will close that gap. The tools outlined here—diagnostic infrastructure, listening with consequence, recognition redesigned to include power, shared accountability, and redistributed labor—offer a practical pathway forward.
This is not a call to abandon Women's Day. It is a call to reimagine it: from a day that consumes attention to a day that reconfigures systems, from a performance of inclusion to an architecture of equity, from a moment when women are seen to a moment when they are empowered to decide. The question for every organization is simple: Will you let Women's Day remain a ritual, or will you transform it into a reckoning?
Ready to Drive Meaningful Change?
Deep Fig extracts evidence-anchored behavioral signals from language data, reviews, interviews, service chats, sales calls, internal messages, to surface the narratives and norms shaping decisions.
It is useful where leaders need auditable insight into trust, intent, risk, and alignment without relying on anecdote—especially in customer experience, sales effectiveness, and workforce culture.
It helps organizations validate what people actually believe and do by mapping recurring frames, friction points, and credibility markers across time, teams, and channels.
Typical applications include brand trust monitoring, leadership communication diagnostics, change-program feedback, incident/risk early warning, and review integrity analysis, delivered as scholarly reports, methods, and reproducible artifacts.
Decode. Decide. Deliver.
Visit deepfig.org