Ahead of International Women’s Day 2026, tech leaders argue progress should be measured by power, pay equity, and who truly makes decisions.
The era of asking permission has ended. Now comes the harder question: What do we do with power?
As International Women’s Day 2026 approaches with its theme of collective empowerment and shared progress, a fundamental shift is occurring in technology’s C-suites. The conversation has evolved far beyond representation metrics and diversity quotas. Today’s tech leaders aren’t asking for inclusion—they’re rewriting the rules of engagement entirely.
Four marketing chiefs from global technology companies—Cloudera, Aircall, Epicor, and AU Group—recently confronted five provocative questions about the state of women’s leadership. Their responses reveal something striking: The old playbook of resilience and representation no longer suffices. What matters now is authority, investment, and the courage to measure progress by harder truths.
The Authority Question: Who Really Decides?
“We as women have moved beyond asking for a seat at the table or ‘leaning in’. We now set the agenda,” declares Mary Wells, Chief Marketing Officer at Cloudera. Her confidence reflects a generational shift, yet the numbers tell a more complex story.
Women hold approximately 29% of senior leadership roles globally, according to McKinsey’s latest research, while only 10% of Fortune 500 companies have women CEOs. Tara de Nicolas, CMO at Aircall, cuts through the optimism with precision: “Representation has improved, but decision authority still concentrates elsewhere.”
In France, where Estelle Dupont Aldiolan leads marketing for AU Group, the proportion of female business leaders reached 25% in 2023—progress, certainly, but still revealing what she calls “the gap that’s still there.” Her observation crystallizes the challenge: “Leadership is not simply about occupying a seat at the table; it is about shaping the agenda and driving outcomes.”
Kerrie Jordan at Epicor offers perhaps the most nuanced view, suggesting the question itself may need reframing. “What matters most is creating environments where anyone, regardless of gender, has the clarity, support, and confidence to make final decisions.” It’s not about counting women in decision-making roles—it’s about fundamentally restructuring how decisions get made.
The Investment Paradox: Celebrating Resilience While Withholding Resources
Here lies corporate America’s most uncomfortable contradiction: Organizations celebrate women’s ability to navigate hostile environments while hesitating to fund their strategic initiatives. The disparity is stark—women-founded startups receive roughly 2% of venture capital funding despite demonstrating strong performance outcomes.
Wells articulates the hypocrisy with surgical precision: “If we celebrate resilience but hesitate on investment, we are not advancing progress.” She advocates for a simple formula: Back the initiative. Allocate the budget. Tie the strategy to revenue.
Dupont Aldiolan echoes this sentiment from across the Atlantic: “Organizations often celebrate resilience during difficulty, yet hesitate when bold ideas require investment.” The message is clear—praising women for surviving in difficult conditions while denying them resources for innovation is not progress; it’s preservation of the status quo.
Jordan brings a refreshing perspective that refuses to pit groups against each other: “The goal isn’t to compare groups, it’s to build a culture where good ideas receive consistent support, where creativity and discipline are recognised equally.”
Measuring What Matters: Power, Pay, and Permanence
“Power, pay, and permanence are not controversial metrics; they are business fundamentals,” states Dupont Aldiolan, cutting through decades of softer metrics around inclusion.
The wage gap persists—women in the United States earn about 82 cents for every dollar earned by men. But salary is just one dimension. De Nicolas identifies three critical indicators: who holds decision-making power, whether compensation reflects impact, and whether women remain in leadership roles long enough to shape long-term strategy. “Those indicators show whether change is structural or simply visible.”
Wells, who has witnessed the evolution from belonging to influence, frames it starkly: “What gets measured, gets done.” Her progression model—from community to confidence to allyship to influence—suggests that while community was essential as a foundation, it cannot be the endpoint.
Design Philosophy: Building for Everyone or Asking Everyone to Fit?
The product question reveals deeper truths about organizational culture. Companies with diverse leadership teams are 25% more likely to outperform financially, with significantly higher innovation revenue according to BCG research.
“Product design reflects who is in the room making decisions,” de Nicolas observes. When teams bring different perspectives into development, they see customer needs others miss entirely.
Dupont Aldiolan’s approach at AU Group demonstrates this principle in action: creating tailor-made solutions by involving all stakeholders from the start. “Inclusion is a strategic decision from the very start,” she emphasizes. It’s not about retrofitting products for diversity—it’s about designing with openness as a core principle.
Jordan frames this as fundamental to organizational health: “When workplaces encourage curiosity, transparency, and trust, decision-making becomes more inclusive and stronger overall.”
Advice Across Generations: The Courage to Act Before You’re “Ready”
Perhaps the most revealing responses came from the question about advice to younger selves. A common thread emerges: stop waiting for permission.
De Nicolas cites the famous Hewlett-Packard internal study showing men apply for roles when meeting 60% of qualifications while women wait for nearly 100%. Her advice is blunt: “Raise your hand sooner. Share the idea. Take the stretch role.”
Wells reinforces this: “The goal is not to be introduced as a ‘woman leader,’ it is to be a trusted leader.” The distinction matters—it’s about competence and impact, not category.
Dupont Aldiolan offers perhaps the most personal insight: “Always surround yourself with people who lift you up… understand what drives you… being comfortable with yourself allows you to be available to others.” Her advice weaves personal authenticity with professional ambition.
Jordan emphasizes learning over knowing: “Focus less on having every answer and more on asking great questions, listening carefully, and learning from others.”
The Path Forward: From Representation to Revolution
As International Women’s Day 2026 approaches, these four leaders represent a vanguard refusing to accept incremental change as sufficient. They’re not asking for seats at tables—they’re building new tables entirely.
Wells captures the moment’s essence when discussing this year’s IWD theme of collective empowerment: “Power is not something to hold tightly, it is something to share responsibly.”
The questions these leaders confront aren’t merely about women in technology. They’re about the fundamental restructuring of how organizations define success, allocate resources, and measure progress. When women control budgets, set strategy, and make final calls on major business decisions, the change isn’t just visible—it’s structural.
The era of celebrating resilience while withholding resources has ended. The time for backing ideas with conviction, measuring progress through power and permanence, and designing systems that invite rather than assimilate has arrived.
As de Nicolas reminds her younger self and, by extension, all of us: “Leadership is not something you are handed once you are perfect. It is something you grow into by stepping forward, learning on the job, and finding your confidence while leading through uncertainty.”
The message for 2026 is clear: Stop asking permission. Start taking authority. The revolution isn’t coming—it’s here, led by women who refuse to wait for the world to be ready for them.
