The theme for International Women’s Day 2026 is Give to Gain. On the surface, it is a noble call for reciprocity and a reminder that a rising tide lifts all boats. But in all honesty, the theme feels like an added burden on women.
For generations, women have been the designated givers, at home and work. We are, after all, nurturers with maternal instincts. We are expected to give in the corporate world in multiple ways. We give our time to mentorship programmes, we give our emotional labour to maintain team culture, and we give our energy to diversity initiatives that often sit outside our core KPIs. The unspoken promise has always been that if we give enough, we will eventually gain a seat at the table.
However, this giving is rarely optional. Research consistently shows that while men are often rewarded for altruism, women are penalised for the lack of it. If we decline to plan the office party or mentor the intern, we aren't seen as busy. We are labelled as transactional, difficult, or not a team player. The freedom to stop expending unpaid labour isn't just a mindset shift; currently, it is a career risk unless the organisation changes what it rewards.
Sadly, the data and the reality I see across the industry tell a different story. When we uncritically embrace Give to Gain, we risk glossing over a critical power imbalance. We risk creating a culture where women are expected to "give" from a place of deficit, while the systems that control the gain, such as promotions, pay equity, and true sponsorship, remain unchanged.
This year, I don’t want to talk about how women can give more. I want to talk about the structural courage required to ensure that when women give, they actually, finally, gain.
The power imbalance: Advice vs. access
The first crack in this Give to Gain philosophy appears when we scrutinise what is actually being exchanged. I have observed and also experienced that when women are asked to give, the currency is often time and knowledge. We are asked to mentor junior staff, speak on panels, or lead employee resource groups. While valuable, this is rarely the defining metric for promotion, even though it is positioned as essential for the ecosystem.
Conversely, when we look at how power brokers (predominantly men) give, the currency is political capital. They don't just give advice; they give access. They open doors. They put their reputation on the line to vouch for a candidate. This is the difference between mentorship and sponsorship.
The imbalance lies here: women are over-mentored and under-sponsored. Women are giving hours of guidance without gaining the high-visibility projects or the P&L responsibilities that actually move the needle. Real "giving" from leadership requires more than an open door policy; it requires the intentional transfer of power.
The scarcity trap: When giving pits us against each other
Perhaps the most uncomfortable aspect of this theme is how it plays out in an environment of scarcity.
Despite years of DEI efforts, the upper echelons of leadership often still feature only a token seat for a woman. When resources and opportunities are artificially capped, the pressure to "give" to other women can unintentionally breed a sense of competition rather than allyship.
It creates a paradox where women feel they are fighting over crumbs of influence. If I give you the spotlight, do I lose my only chance to shine? If I advocate for you, am I training my replacement?
This scarcity mindset is not a flaw in women’s character; it is a flaw in the system. True allyship cannot flourish in a crab bucket environment. We cannot expect women to lift each other up if the structural reality dictates that only one of us can survive at the top. We need organisations to widen the table so that one woman’s success does not feel like another’s failure.
The cultural weight of asking
The equation of Give to Gain assumes a frictionless cycle of reciprocity. It assumes that once you give, you can simply ask for what you need in return. But for many of us, particularly those from Asian or similar cultural backgrounds, the gain part can be difficult.
We are often raised with a cultural lesson that equates giving with virtue and asking with selfishness. There is a debt associated with receiving help that many women fear incurring. We are conditioned to keep our heads down, deliver excellence, and wait for the system to notice us.
If the corporate model rewards the loudest asker, the Give to Gain theme fails the high-performers who are culturally conditioned to silence or humility. We cannot build a system that puts the onus only on the woman, relying on women asking for their due. Leaders need to develop the cultural intelligence to recognise talent that does not shout, and to offer support proactively, not just transactionally.
Redefining the exchange
So, where does this leave us for IWD 2026? I am not suggesting we stop giving. I am a big believer in paying forward the kindness and teachings I have received. But the IWD theme needs an amendment. We cannot simply give to gain. We must give power to gain equality.
The flow of generosity must fundamentally shift direction if we truly want to achieve balance and real change.
Institutions must give so that women can gain. This means providing transparency in pay, establishing equitable pathways that do not penalise caregiving. This means fostering a culture where office housework is recognised as a key performance indicator worthy of promotion, not a career hindrance. Similarly, men and allies must give so women can gain. Stop offering unsolicited advice. Instead, give political capital, yield a seat at the table, and offer a name on the sponsorship form. Finally, women must give themselves permission and the liberty to stop fixing the system without compensation.
Let’s ensure that our generosity is an investment, not a tax. Only then will we truly gain.
Source: Campaign Asia-Pacific