Balancing the scales: Women's authority and risk-taking still judged differently in marketing and tech

"Balance the scales" resonates with me because imbalance isn't just a concept, it shows up in very ordinary, very consequential moments.

Last year, I watched a highly capable female founder – someone with a strong track record and deep conviction – slowly second-guess a critical business decision after sustained pressure from a male advisor. He was confident, forceful and deeply patronising, and over time his certainty outweighed her lived experience. 

Nothing about his advice was malicious but the dynamic is a familiar one: his confidence was over-weighted, while her judgment was being quietly devalued. She was encouraged to second-guess instincts shaped by experience, while external opinion was framed as more "rational" or "commercial." The effect was cumulative: not one moment of dismissal, but a steady erosion of authority that made decisiveness feel risky rather than expected.

At the same time, I've found myself being questioned about my own ability to place big bets – despite years of doing exactly that. Launching my own startup, making bold commercial decisions for a challenger brand over nearly a decade, moving countries, rebuilding networks and repeatedly stepping into new professional arenas. These are not low-risk choices. Yet, the assumption lingers that decisiveness or risk appetite must be "proven" again, simply because I'm a woman.

Recognise patterns and correct them

For me, this theme is about recognising these patterns and actively correcting them – not in theory, but in practice. Balancing the scales means trusting women's judgment at the same level and in the same moments as we trust men's confidence. We all have biases; they're shortcuts our brains use to navigate complexity. Leadership requires noticing when those shortcuts are wrong and choosing to override them. 

International Women's Day matters, full stop. 

It matters in marketing, brand, and tech even more because these industries are powerful amplifiers.

What we see, hear, and talk about is shaped by marketing and brand. The tools we use every day – how we work, buy, communicate – are designed by tech companies. The values embedded in those decisions have an outsized impact on society, whether we acknowledge it or not.

These are sectors that pride themselves on innovation and progress, yet many of the dynamics around leadership and authority remain surprisingly traditional. 

The fine line between collaboration and compliance

Women are often encouraged to be collaborative and consensus-driven, until that collaboration turns into compliance. When women challenge assumptions or hold a firm line, they're more likely to be labelled "difficult" or "uncollaborative", rather than decisive.

I've experienced this firsthand: being seen as collaborative when I agree and uncollaborative when I don't – in particular when refusing to say "yes" simply to protect someone else's ego. That's not collaboration; that's appeasement. And it's a standard rarely applied evenly across genders.

International Women's Day creates space to name these dynamics out loud and to reset expectations. If marketing and tech truly want better outcomes – better products, stronger brands, more sustainable growth – then they need leaders who can challenge thinking, place smart bets and act with conviction. Gender shouldn't determine how that behaviour is interpreted.

Judgement, perception and women in marketing and technology

One of the most persistent challenges for women in marketing and tech is that judgment is often filtered through perception. Men are assumed capable until proven otherwise; women are often required to prove capability repeatedly, even after long records of success.

Another challenge is how disagreement is interpreted. I've seen and experienced women being penalised not for poor outcomes, but for refusing to defer. Assertiveness becomes "uncooperative," boundaries become "difficult" and conviction is reframed as inflexibility. Over time, this creates pressure to soften opinions or over-explain decisions which quietly erodes authority. 

Improving the status quo requires practical shifts, not symbolic ones

Leaders need to examine how they interpret behaviour: are they rewarding confidence, or actual results? Are they inviting dissent, or only agreement delivered politely? Sponsorship matters too. Not just mentoring, but senior leaders actively backing women in high-stakes decisions, just as they would back a man in that same situation.

Finally, we need clearer standards around what leadership looks like and consistency in how those standards are applied. Real equity isn't about asking women to behave differently. It's about changing the lens through which leadership is judged, so capability, courage and commercial impact are recognised no matter who delivers them.