Great reputations are rarely accidental – they are crafted. And today, many of those reputations are being shaped by women in PR who are redefining the industry with insight, empathy, and an unwavering belief in the power of the right story. But as we see and often wander around, ‘PR Is Female-Dominated – So Why Aren’t Leadership Roles?’
Swati Nathani, Co-founder & CBO, Team Pumpkin, is our next contributor for this year’s story on International Women’s Day.
Drop in female representation from mid-level to senior leadership – are women opting out or being overlooked?
In India, the mid-level drop is largely structural, not a motivation problem. We don’t have caregiving infrastructure at scale. Reliable childcare, after-school support, eldercare, even predictable domestic help is inconsistent. So when pressure peaks, someone absorbs the unpaid second shift, and it still defaults to women because of how we’ve been conditioned.
At mid-level, women aren’t opting out of ambition. They’re opting out of burnout. The system expects them to perform like they have no home responsibilities and parent like they have no job.
By senior levels, the environment becomes more competitive and less forgiving. When domestic pressures rise and the support system doesn’t, stepping back becomes the most rational decision, not a lack of drive.
Career breaks, caregiving responsibilities, and whether leadership models are structured around male career trajectories
Most leadership tracks were built around uninterrupted, linear careers. That model mirrors traditional male career trajectories, where someone else historically handled the majority of caregiving.
A career break is treated like a loss of seriousness instead of a phase of life. When women return, they are often slotted into stability roles, not growth roles. That one decision quietly reshapes their long-term leadership trajectory.
If we genuinely want parity at senior levels, we have to design for nonlinear growth, structured re-entry pathways, and profit-linked opportunities post-break. Otherwise, we are asking women to compete in a race whose track wasn’t built for them.
Why are assertive women often labelled aggressive, while similar behaviour in men is seen as decisive?
Very often, “aggressive” is a convenient label. It shifts focus away from the actual issue.
When a woman in leadership calls out a mistake or sets a hard boundary, it can be easier to question her tone than to confront the error. Discomfort with being corrected by a woman sometimes gets reframed as her being too much.
With men, authority is expected. With women, authority is still negotiated. The word aggressive becomes a way to dilute legitimacy rather than address performance or accountability.
From Lady Boss to just Boss — why labels matter?
When we say lady boss, we are subtly framing leadership as male by default and female as an exception. We don’t say male boss.
It’s similar to the phrase career-oriented woman. We rarely describe men that way because ambition in men is assumed. When we label women leaders differently, even positively, it reinforces the idea that they occupy a seat that isn’t naturally theirs.
A boss is a role. Adding a qualifier makes it sound like a category rather than a norm.
