Blog

(Bloomberg) — There’s a near €2 trillion ($2.3 trillion) upheaval coming for European bond markets to cap a 2025 already marked by tariff twists and turns, deficit worries and now a political crisis in France.

Most Read from Bloomberg

The storm is centered on a long-planned reform of the Dutch pension system, the European Union’s biggest. It’s already pushing up yields on longer-dated bonds and traders are positioning for volatility in the euro swaps market, which the funds use for hedging. Things could become more extreme at the turn of the year, when a large tranche of funds are set to transition, due to lower liquidity at that time.

The Dutch central bank warned earlier this year of a risk to financial stability, and the complexity of the underlying mechanics means it’s hard to get a grasp on the extent of any disruption.

Asset managers including BlackRock Inc. and Aviva Investors are recommending caution when it comes to the long-end of the yield curve, favoring shorter-dated tenors. For others, including JPMorgan Asset Management, the issue is helping to make US Treasuries look more attractive than European government bonds.

“There are so many unknowns and moving parts,” said Ales Koutny, head of international rates at Vanguard. “Everybody knows that the event is there, but nobody knows what the final outcome is going to be. Everybody’s just trying their best to position for it.”

The revamp is intended to help cope with an aging population and changing labor market.

While the Netherlands accounts for just 7% of the euro-area economy, the pension system is an outsize market player. It has more than half of all pension savings in the bloc, according to European Central Bank data. Its European bond holdings total almost €300 billion.

Volatility

In recent weeks, a gauge of future volatility in 30-year euro swaps has picked up, which ING Group NV strategists say is partly down to the transition. The shift is also affecting euro funding costs.

These ripples stem from changes in the way Dutch retirement funds protect their portfolios against fluctuations in interest rates. Until now, they’ve relied heavily on long-dated swaps to ensure they have enough cash to pay pensioners down the line, irrespective of what happens to borrowing costs.

Under the switch to so-called life-cycle investing, younger workers will be more heavily invested in riskier assets like stocks, with less need for these long-dated hedges. Older members’ savings will be skewed toward safer securities like bonds, but the corresponding hedges will also shorten.

About 36 funds are scheduled to switch to the new system on Jan. 1, with the rest following in tranches every six months until January 2028. With the first big wave seeking to unwind their hedges en masse at a time when liquidity is typically poor, investment banks and brokers may struggle to match up sellers and buyers, gumming up the system.

The supply-demand imbalance for longer-dated swaps is already significant. With a pipeline of pension funds needing to unwind swap positions, market players such as hedge funds seeking to profit could let this play out before stepping in to take the other side of the trade. That could lead to a rapid steepening in the curve, said Rohan Khanna, head of European Rates Research at Barclays Plc.

How it unfolds in January is “anybody’s guess, but the nervousness is going to be very high,” Khanna said. “The market can become illiquid or jumpy in such situations.”

Complicating preparations is a political crisis in The Netherlands, where there will be a snap election after the collapse this summer of both the government and a caretaker administration that followed it. Among those that quit was Social Affairs Minister Eddy van Hijum, who was in charge of the transition.

He was expected to give pension funds an extra year to reduce their interest-rate hedges once they’ve transitioned. That plan is unlikely to be affected, though a parliamentary debate on pensions scheduled for this week might be postponed, a spokesperson for the ministry said.

Debt Demand

There’s also a question over what this turn-of-the-year move will do to demand for long-dated debt, with January typically one of the busiest periods for new bond sales.

Yields on German and French 30-year debt have risen for the past four months and are trading close to multi-year highs as fiscal tensions ramp up. France has been thrust into yet another political crisis over its budget, and the government may be toppled this month.

ABN Amro estimates that the pension sector’s largest exposures are in German, French and Dutch debt, and the drop in demand may put pressure on governments to switch toward shorter maturities, according to strategists including Sonia Renoult.

That could leave them more exposed to interest-rate volatility as they are forced into refinancing their debt more frequently.

The Dutch yield curve between 10- and 30-year maturities has already steepened nearly 50 basis points this year, the most among its EU peers.

Investors like Steve Ryder, who helps run €8.3 billion in fixed income assets at Aviva, say they’ll avoid any exposure to longer-dated European bonds at the end of the year, given the likelihood for choppiness.

“If everyone transitions at the same time it would become a bit of a hot potato for the dealers that have to take on the risk,” he said.

There are some mitigating factors. Pension funds may start to unwind long-dated hedges ahead of time, reducing the risk of bottlenecks, if they’re confident they’ve got enough of a buffer to absorb potential losses.

There is also the one-year adjustment period the government is granting for hedges. However, the longer pension funds take, the longer they would be over-hedged, which is particularly relevant for younger workers.

The Dutch central bank said it will continue to monitor the transition but is confident that the one-year period “provides pension funds with sufficient flexibility to adjust their portfolios in an orderly manner.”

Many trading desks remain anxious and expect things to move quickly at the turn of the year.

“We still think the transition will be front-loaded,” said Pierre Hauviller, director of pensions and insurance structuring at Deutsche Bank AG, adding that markets are positioning for this. “Volatility trades in early January are already very crowded.”

–With assistance from Patrick Van Oosterom.

(Updates with yield curve steepening in 20th paragraph.)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

©2025 Bloomberg L.P.

Held on the sidelines of the GTR Mena 2025 event in Dubai – just before a new wave of global diversity, political and societal challenges – this roundtable brought together senior leaders in transaction banking to explore the cultural, structural and personal factors shaping the gender leadership gap, and why real inclusion means moving beyond quotas.

Roundtable participants:

• Nike Adebowale, regional head of business management, Global Trade Solutions, HSBC Middle East
• Komal Bajaj, director, B2B market development UAE, Visa Business Solutions
• Zena Brake, credit director – Middle East, Allianz Trade
• Fatenah Danab, head of trade and working capital, Middle East, Barclays (moderator)
• Amr El Haddad, head of transaction banking, National Bank of Kuwait
• Naura Hussain, director, trade asset sales & syndications for Africa & Middle East, Standard Chartered
• Semih Ozkan, executive director, head of corporate payments sales, Middle East & North Africa, JP Morgan Payments
• Caryn Pace-Messenger, managing director, global trade and supply chain finance, Bank of America
• Najma Salman, managing director, co-head of cash and trade for financial institutions, CEEMEA, Deutsche Bank

Danab: To kick things off, when this topic was first proposed, the mixed and even controversial reactions it received highlighted just how complex and unresolved the issue of gender diversity in leadership still is. Some questioned whether it’s even a topic worth discussing, while others raised concerns about tokenism. And yet, the data tells a clear story: women currently hold only 12% of senior management roles in GCC banking, and just 7% of board seats – far below the global average of 20%. From your perspective – whether global, regional or within your own organisation – how would you describe the current state of gender diversity in leadership? Are we seeing meaningful progress, or does the gap remain as wide as ever?

Adebowale: It’s clear from the stats that Danab has just illustrated that the industry is still significantly underperforming in terms of leadership diversity, however there are encouraging signs of improvement. At HSBC, when we look at gender diversity across the bank, we’re at about 51% women globally, which drops to 34% at a senior leadership level. It’s a similar story in the UAE: around 45% overall, but just 35% in leadership roles. We’ve been working hard to get that number up – from 31% in 2021 to where we are now; so there’s progress, but still a long way to go.

Ultimately it takes time to shift the needle in big organisations, but it’s moving in the right direction.

Salman: For me, it’s more about how you look at it – globally, regionally and at the personnel level. And does anything need to be done? Definitely. We’re not there yet. Like you said, it’s one of the most debated topics – and that alone shows there’s a gap. You’ve got 51% of the population being women, yet when this comes up, many men ask, ‘Is there a problem?’ while most women say, ‘Yes, there is.’ There’s a disconnect we need to bridge.

In some economies like Turkey, Tunisia and Lebanon, we see significantly more women at mid and senior management levels, which is great. In those contexts, it’s no longer even a topic of discussion at those levels. But when you talk about the board level, the issue still persists. Until that’s addressed right at the top, we won’t get to the root of the problem. And the issue may not even be men, per se – it’s more about why women drop off before reaching the top.

At Deutsche Bank, we have KPIs and targets to meet, but personally, I’ve experienced the progress as very organic and encouraging. I think the goal is to see more of that. I’m glad there’s more awareness now, but I really hope we can bridge this divide.

Brake: When I look back, I realise my own empowerment started at home – from my dad. He didn’t just say, ‘You can do it’, he expected it. He never treated me differently from my brother. It really starts in the household – girls need to hear early on that they can speak up, take space and lead. Because at the board level, you need people who are resilient, vocal and strong. But if women aren’t raised to develop those traits, it becomes harder later.

And I’ve seen this at work – in high-pressure situations, women can sometimes respond emotionally, not because they’re less capable, but because they weren’t encouraged or equipped early on. That’s why it has to be tackled proactively – at the company level. Forget just relying on schools or families. Companies need structured programmes that identify and nurture female talent from the start – with mentorship, training and clear, unbiased pathways to leadership.

At Allianz Trade, we’ve started doing that. In Dubai, for example, when I joined the board in 2020, I was only the second woman – before that, it was all men. Now, five out of seven board members are women. It’s not about ticking a box, it’s about recognising and elevating the voices and leadership qualities that women bring. And when women see themselves represented at the top, it sends a powerful message across the organisation.

Bajaj: I think there are several factors at play. First, structural barriers – women often have mentors but not enough sponsors. In my two decades in banking, I’ve seen an unconscious bias that paints women as risk-averse and less aggressive at senior levels, which can hinder their ability to drive the organisation forward. There’s this unspoken notion that when you see a woman as a CEO or CFO, she might not be able to take risks or push her team because of her ‘softer’ side.

Another issue is the lack of allyship within organisations, which can limit women’s opportunities for advancement. At Visa, fortunately, our women’s network is a fantastic platform to discuss gender equality, diversity, workplace safety, career progression and pay equity.

Networking challenges also play a role. I personally struggle to balance late-night networking events with family responsibilities. That balancing act can keep women from the types of engagements that often lead to senior leadership roles.

Ozkan: I think there are a lot of important topics here, and yes, the challenges are real. It’s also a very complex issue, and a lot of it is contextual; different cultures, different environments. But I also see it as bi-directional. It’s not just about how society treats women – it’s also about how women are positioned and empowered to respond within that context.

Having been in the transaction banking space in this region for about 20 years, I’ve seen a lot of change when it comes to diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s been like a snowball – slow at first, but gathering momentum over time. And the drivers are varied: there’s a corporate case, a business imperative, but also social and economic factors pushing it forward.

That said, I do think there’s a risk awareness issue. Women aren’t always out there in the same visible way, often because they’re juggling so much – work, home, social responsibilities. I see it in my own life too.

So the change has to come from society as a whole, evolving roles and expectations. On the corporate side, we need to set the right KPIs, offer flexible working models, and honestly, I think Covid helped accelerate that shift. Flexibility has become more mainstream, and that’s helped women manage both sides of their worlds more effectively.

Salman: We often talk about a strong pipeline of women in mid and senior levels, but when it comes to reaching the top, even if responsibilities like childcare can be shared, childbearing itself can’t. Whether a woman is single or already has kids, health and energy levels often start to factor into the equation, and she’s forced to choose between career and well-being.

That’s when many women decide to step back – and it’s a valid decision.

Even at junior levels, you see women opting out to raise children or focus on family. But the world hasn’t fully accounted for that when we talk about equity. We expect one-to-one parity, but in reality, if one woman might need to step away, you need two in the pipeline.

Look at Jacinda Ardern, the former New Zealand prime minister. She stepped down, saying she had nothing left to give – not because she wasn’t capable, but because she recognised her limits. That kind of honesty is rare among male leaders, not because men don’t feel it, but because stepping down is often viewed as weakness. We need to normalise those decisions for both women and men.

Only when we allow space for people to say, ‘I’ve done enough, I need to step away’, without judgment, can we create a truly equitable system. That’s how we ensure women stay in the leadership pipeline – by recognising that stepping back is part of the journey, not a failure. And the same goes for men. There’s nothing wrong with pausing or opting out – we just need to design systems that accept and support that.

Danab: Historically, some societies may have been matriarchal, but today, the traits that are typically valued in organisations are patriarchal – assertiveness, decisiveness, a certain kind of toughness. Traits like emotional intelligence or vulnerability, which are more often associated with women, are still seen as less valuable. But they shouldn’t be.

As you mentioned with the example of the New Zealand prime minister, showing emotion or admitting you’re at capacity shouldn’t be a sign of weakness. And maybe part of the responsibility falls on us as women to start shifting that perception – bit by bit – by owning those qualities and calling out when they’re dismissed.

Ozkan: I agree to disagree with the idea that emotion doesn’t belong in the corporate space. Everyone brings something different to the table, and yes, there are values and performance metrics, but there’s also space for emotion, empathy and humanity. Blending those is what creates truly effective environments.

To build on that, I’m doing a PhD in finance and banking; something I returned to after many years, thanks to the support of my partner. In my research, I’ve been looking at empirical studies around diversity, equity and inclusion – especially gender diversity – and how these factors impact financial performance and corporate stability.

And the evidence is clear: across different countries and sectors, gender diversity in the workforce consistently adds value. It enhances performance, resilience and decision-making. The data is there – it’s not just theory.

What’s also fascinating is the underlying tension in corporate governance models. The US model, which is rooted in shareholder theory, focuses on profit maximisation, it’s very numbers- and results-driven. In contrast, the European stakeholder model is more holistic, recognising the importance of employees, governments, customers and society at large.

This divergence creates friction, especially when it comes to topics like DEI or climate change – areas where stakeholder perspectives matter deeply but may not directly drive short-term profits. That tension shapes corporate decisions more than we often realise, and it has major implications for how companies approach diversity and inclusion at the highest levels. It’s a really interesting space to explore.

Adebowale: I want to pick up on something you said about whether women have a responsibility to help shift perceptions. Companies have the power to shape culture, not just internally, but also in how they influence broader societal norms. That happens through policies, practices and how leadership models behaviour.

Take flexible working, for example. We’ve been really intentional about introducing things like caregiver leave – not just a token five days off, but a real effort to support those with responsibilities at home. And just as important is encouraging men to take that leave – and to do it visibly. In the team I work in, we talk about the idea of ‘leaving loudly’ – saying openly, ‘I’m leaving to pick up my child’, whether you’re a mother or a father. It normalises shared responsibility and shifts the tone of the workplace.

Personally, I’ve benefited from my husband having that kind of flexibility. It’s what’s allowed me to lean in more. Paternity leave is another critical piece – if we’re saying women carry a disproportionate share of childcare, then how much time are we giving men to truly share in that responsibility? If men are encouraged – and expected – to take meaningful time off, it gives women the space to stay in and grow their careers. Last year, HSBC enhanced its paternity benefits for employees across the Middle East, doubling the amount of time from two weeks to four weeks.

These are the kinds of policies companies need to prioritise if we want to stop the drop-off at the top. We’ve seen evidence from some Nordic countries where longer paternity leave correlates with stronger gender diversity in leadership. So yes, we as women have a role to play, but we also need to push our organisations, through employee resource groups, leadership engagement and accountability, to design and implement policies that create a truly inclusive culture.

El Haddad: I think we need to be honest: it’s not a level playing field at all. Women work, they take care of the kids, and hold everything together. Especially in this part of the world, every man usually has someone supporting him – and that someone is almost always a woman.

So when we talk about gender equity, we have to remember that women are competing against men who can focus entirely on their careers, while they’re juggling work, home, children – and everything else. That’s not sustainable unless we change the culture.

Empowering women isn’t just about giving them tools or opportunities – it’s about shifting the mindset. Organisations need to adapt to this new reality. Like you said, men should be able to leave to pick up their kids without judgment. But in many workplaces – like my own – if I left a meeting to pick up my child, people would look at me like I’d lost the plot. And the truth is, the meeting would go just fine without me. It’s not about the work – it’s about how that action is perceived.

This is a culture problem, not a business one – and until we tackle that, real change will be limited.

Bajaj: Just to pick up on what you’re saying – it’s absolutely a cultural issue. Having worked across both international institutions and more regional or local organisations, I’ve really felt that contrast.

In international work environments, there’s generally much more awareness and acceptance when it comes to things like flexibility and caregiving. If I needed to step out to pick up my child – or if a male colleague did – it was no big deal. It was just understood.

Compared to some more regional or local settings, that same action carried a different weight. I remember a male colleague saying he needed to leave to take his wife to the hospital, and people actually viewed it as him shirking his professional responsibilities. That reaction says a lot – it’s not about the actual work, it’s about cultural expectations. That’s where we really need to see a shift.

Brake: I just want to add something that might be a bit controversial. I don’t think the goal here is to change the roles of women versus men – we’re different, and that’s okay. It’s not about saying women should start acting like men, or that we want to be out every night, leaving our kids behind. It’s about accepting that we’re different and addressing the cultural and historical disadvantages women have faced.

We can’t overlook the role of women, but because of how things have evolved culturally, women have been left out – and now we’re trying to change that by creating space and accommodations that take those differences into account. For example, during Covid, I had my first child. It was one of the best things that happened to me in terms of work-life balance. Because of remote work, I got to spend more time at home, and that would’ve been unheard of before the pandemic, especially in Dubai, where it wasn’t really accepted like it was in other regions.

So for me, work-life balance and flexibility aren’t about changing the role of women – they’re about accommodating women so they can participate more fully. We need to adjust the system, not the identity. Society – and especially men – need to understand that women are not trying to replace anyone, but we do need a system that supports our realities.

Ozkan: Maybe what we really need is a broader cultural shift – in how we work, how workplaces are structured, and especially within transaction banking, where a lot is evolving. One thing that stands out is how GTR has helped bring these conversations to the forefront. Every bank and institution seems to have its own internal programmes focused on diversity and inclusion, and I think it could be really valuable for this group to start exchanging some of those ideas and best practices.

For instance, you might learn from what’s happening at a larger institution, and vice versa, we can share what’s worked, what hasn’t and what’s actually moved the needle. That exchange could be a meaningful next step for this group.

Also, not everyone wants to be in the spotlight – as was mentioned earlier – but having these conversations regularly and sharing successes can help draw in more voices, not just from banking, but also from treasury teams and other sectors. Women are making up a growing share of the workforce in these areas, and this platform could be a great opportunity to connect them to different banks, initiatives and support systems.

Danab: One of the questions I had, actually, is around which specific programmes you’ve seen succeed in helping balance the numbers at the top.

We hear a lot about mentorship programmes, but not nearly as much about sponsorship – and yet sponsorship is often one of the most powerful drivers for career progression, for both women and men. So how do we think that should be approached?

Is it on the individual to seek out a sponsor? Or does the organisation need to take responsibility for building a culture and a structure that fosters sponsorship, especially for high-potential talent?

To be fair, I’ve experienced both sides. I found my own sponsor once, and it was hugely successful. But I’ve also been part of a formal sponsorship programme that didn’t really work – I didn’t click with the person. Is sponsorship still relevant in today’s context? And how do we make it more impactful, particularly for driving equity at senior levels?

Adebowale: Yes, it’s a great point, and something I struggle with too when it comes to mentorship versus sponsorship. The most successful sponsorships I’ve seen have happened organically, where someone spots potential, believes in that person, and actively advocates for them. That kind of genuine support doesn’t usually come from being paired in a formal programme.

But then you have to ask, how do those organic relationships even get formed? It often comes down to networking and visibility. So maybe the question isn’t just about sponsorship programmes themselves, but about how we create environments where relationships can grow naturally.

That might mean rethinking the typical networking formats to foster more inclusive and accessible ways for people to connect, so these relationships have the chance to take root.

The truth is, it’s really hard to force a sponsorship connection. But we can design cultures and opportunities that make those connections more likely to happen.

Bajaj: Exactly. In one of the organisations I worked at, the mentorship programme felt quite forced. It even became a bit of a stigma – like, if you hadn’t opted in as a mentor or mentee, you weren’t seen as engaged. But honestly, I don’t think that’s always what women are looking for. Many of us already have people giving us advice – what we really need is someone who can create visibility and open doors.

I also think some women feel a bit caged – held back by imposter syndrome or a lack of confidence – and they might not put themselves forward, even if they’re highly capable. That’s why it’s so important to have someone who can be a voice for them, especially at senior levels.

Cross-gender sponsorships are something I’ve seen work really well, where a male leader sponsors a woman and helps coach her and raise her profile. That dynamic can be powerful, especially if she’s hesitant to step out on her own.

And importantly, sponsorship isn’t one-size-fits-all. You can’t just drop in a fixed programme and expect it to work for everyone. Every organisation, every individual, has a different context. What’s needed is a flexible framework – something that provides structure but can be tailored and evolve over time based on what actually drives growth and visibility for each person. That’s when sponsorship really starts to deliver.

Danab: Building on that, leadership has to take accountability, not just for creating opportunities but also for helping tackle challenges like imposter syndrome or the ‘disease to please’, which women often face more than men.

It’s not enough to launch programmes. Leaders need to actively shape a culture that supports confidence, diverse leadership styles, and gives people, especially women, the space to speak up and grow. The onus is on us to make that real.

Salman: I think it goes both ways – from the organisation and the individual. Formal programmes help create the space, but the most impactful mentorship and sponsorship relationships I’ve had were organic.

One male mentee once told me he was asked to talk to me because he was ‘too nice’, and nice wouldn’t get him to the top. That really stuck with me. I told him, being nice can get you there – we just need more of the right kind of nice in leadership. It’s about balance: not being a doormat but showing kindness while holding your ground. The issue is those traits aren’t often seen or valued at the top yet.

So yes, there’s an onus on leadership to guide, but also on the individual to own their authenticity – strategically. That means staying true to who you are, but understanding your environment: when to speak up, how to read the room, how to deliver the message in a way that lands.

Personally, the path I took wasn’t through formal programmes, even though they existed. What I’ve seen too often is that leadership throws out 15 mentors and thinks they’ve solved the problem. Meanwhile, women are being asked to take on more and more, at the risk of burnout or failure, and then blamed when they can’t keep up.

That’s why we need to rethink what sponsorship really looks like. It’s not about coffee chats. It’s about doing your job exceptionally well, stepping up beyond the basics and solving problems, not just pointing them out. When you show up like that, sponsors notice.

Ozkan: That’s a great point, especially from a transaction banking perspective. No one really graduates saying, ‘I want to go into transaction banking’, but it’s a space that’s both simple and highly complex – detail-oriented, analytical – and many of those strengths align well with qualities women often bring.

In fact, compared to other business lines, transaction banking tends to show better gender diversity – something worth exploring further. But talent today, regardless of gender, is also looking for more: flexibility, opportunity, sponsorship and a culture that aligns with their values.

The challenge is making sure we meet those expectations. Programmes like sponsorship and mentorship can play a big role, but they require the right cultural fit, mutual engagement and a focus on building confidence. I’ve seen it often: women hesitate to go for roles unless they meet all 10 criteria, while men might go for it with just five. That’s where sponsors and mentors make a difference – encouraging women to step up, even if they don’t tick every box.

Salman: If I could add one key point, especially on the P&L side – we talk a lot about counting how many women are in leadership or on boards, but real change requires a cultural shift. If I had one wish for the corporate world, it would be this: start from the top and invest in preparing women for board-level, P&L-focused roles.

There are very few accessible programmes for this, especially in places like Dubai, and many are expensive with limited sponsorship. If companies truly believe in gender diversity at the top, they should sponsor women through credible board-readiness programmes.

Personally, as a mother of three boys, I often find the ‘mother’ title more impactful than my job title – people react more strongly to that. And culturally, we need to normalise both men and women taking family responsibilities. In my team, when someone – often a man – says he’s leaving to pick up his kids, I don’t think twice. That kind of balance and flexibility makes the team stronger. The team delivers better because they feel trusted and supported.

But to get there, it needs to start at the top. Organisations need to walk the talk; invest in women’s business leadership, not just representation, and you’ll see the impact cascade through the company.

El Haddad: The bigger challenge often comes after a woman reaches the top. I completely agree with what’s been said – yes, women need structured sponsorship, succession planning and access to board training. But the question is: once she gets there, will she be set up to succeed?

If she’s still carrying the bulk of responsibilities at home while also facing higher expectations at work, where everyone’s watching her, expecting her to outperform – that’s not equality. It becomes a competition that shouldn’t exist. We’re not here to compete with each other; we’re all part of the same team.

The reality is, the man who came before her wasn’t expected to ‘make magic’. So why should she be? Until we level those expectations, success at the top won’t feel truly fair or sustainable.

Danab: Does anyone have a piece of advice they’d offer to aspiring young leaders, male or female, on how to successfully climb the corporate ladder?

Brake: Believe in yourself. Women often hesitate to take on opportunities unless they feel 100% ready, while men tend to jump in with confidence, and the data backs that up. So first, trust your own potential. And second, those of us in leadership – both women and men – need to reach out and lift others up.

That support really matters.

Also, remember you don’t have to please everyone or push through at all costs. It’s okay to pause, to take a step back and check in with yourself. Balance and health matter, especially if you’re ambitious. Look to role models who’ve done the same, and don’t be afraid to ask for guidance. A mentor can make a big difference on the journey.

Bajaj: I’d say, don’t be shy about voicing your opinion, especially if you notice bias or something that doesn’t sit right, whether it’s in this space or in your day-to-day work. Speak up and don’t be afraid to say, ‘I disagree’, when it matters.

And secondly, be assertive in your communication. I’ve seen too often that when someone isn’t assertive, their voice gets overlooked. Learning to communicate with confidence is key, and it’s something worth instilling early on.

Adebowale: Very much along the same lines, but my advice would be: ask for what you want. I recently saw an example where a man explicitly asked to be included in a succession plan – something that usually happens behind closed doors. And it struck me: why don’t more of us do that?

Whether it’s asking for help, guidance, support or a specific opportunity, it rarely hurts to ask. In fact, it often opens doors. If you’re clear on what you want in your career, speak up. Confidence to ask is key, because if you don’t, chances are you won’t get it.

El Haddad: For me, it starts with how we raise our kids. It’s not just about organisations – it’s about parenting. We should raise boys and girls with equal respect and responsibility.

If we raise children this way, in a generation or two, we won’t need to talk about diversity and inclusion – it’ll just be natural. If a woman is capable and given a fair chance, she’ll rise, become a board member, or whatever she aims for – not because of a quota, but because she’s earned it. The problem is, many of us weren’t raised that way. But we can change that for the next generation.

Salman: It all comes down to attitude and authenticity. Yes, you need to learn how to play the game and read the room – but don’t lose yourself in the process. We don’t need women at the top pretending to be men. Bring your values with you, or you risk replicating the very system we’re trying to change.

Men and women each bring something valuable; the goal isn’t to copy, but to lead in your own way. So to the next generation: believe in yourself, work hard to get there, but once you do, stay true to who you are. That’s where real impact lies.