Still the support act? Women in comms deserve centre stage
Communications leader, Emma Blackmore
Communications and public relations in New Zealand is a female-majority profession. Walk into most comms teams and you’ll find talented, experienced women doing complex work. But look at the leadership tables, the crisis war rooms, the strategy sessions - and the picture often looks quite different.
This isn’t unique to New Zealand. Globally, communications has long been described as a “pink ghetto” - a profession where women make up most of the workforce, but senior leadership, pay and decision-making power still sit elsewhere.
This International Women’s Day, I sat down with Emma Blackmore, a senior communications leader with deep experience across the New Zealand public, private and not for profit sectors, to talk honestly about what’s still holding women back in our profession and what needs to change.
There is progress. More NZ agencies now have comms leaders on ELT. Networks of women in comms are stronger than ever. Male allies are stepping up.
But the patterns Emma and I talked about are still very familiar - and they echo experiences she had early in her own career.
The messages women receive start early
Early in her twenties, Emma experienced a moment that would shape how she understood the expectations placed on women in the profession. During a team development exercise, the group completed the Myers-Briggs personality assessment, and Emma came out as an ENFP - intuitive, people-focused and collaborative.
Her manager, a woman, told her bluntly that this profile would be “career limiting.” That it would make her appear “emotional,” “weak” and “not strategic enough.”
What strikes Emma now is not just the comment itself, but what it represented: another woman reinforcing outdated, genderstereotypical assumptions about what leadership should look like. Instead of recognising the strengths in empathy, intuition and collaboration, those qualities were framed as liabilities - traits to suppress rather than assets to develop.
It took time, and the support of leaders who valued authenticity, for Emma to unlearn the self doubt that moment created and to see that those very qualities were central to her leadership, agility and ability to bring people together.
That experience is one of the reasons she believes so strongly that women must champion other women through the pipeline, not tear them down. We cannot afford to replicate the very structures that hold us back.
How communications gets defined: the strategic vs tactical divide
Emma put the profession in context.
“Across so many professions, women face a mix of challenges - from conscious and unconscious bias to the very real structural factors that shape how their work is defined, valued and positioned. Communications is no exception, and both bias and structure contribute to the barriers women face. These challenges are not experienced equally either - Māori, Pacific and women of colour often face them more intensely and with fewer buffers.”
In communications, those structural factors shape how the work itself is defined. When comms is seen as writing or relationship management, it’s treated as support work, even though much of the role is really about reputation, risk, stakeholder insight and organisational judgement.
Because communications is a female-majority profession, that distinction becomes gendered. Skills like empathy, listening and relationship-building - which are central to good comms - are labelled “soft,” even when they’re exactly what organisations need to avoid crises or deliver change well.
“When comms is seen as a tactical service, that perception tends to land more heavily on women, because storytelling and emotional labour are historically feminised.”
Another outdated perception still lingers in some organisations: the idea that comms exists to “tell a good story,” smooth over operational problems, or make bad news go away. It’s a relic of an earlier era - the days of spin - and it fundamentally misunderstands the role. The real value of communications is in front‑footing issues, naming risks early and helping organisations manage them transparently. Good comms doesn’t distract from problems; it prevents them from escalating. When leaders see comms as a shiny veneer rather than a strategic function, they miss the opportunity to use it for what it actually is: an early‑warning system, a source of organisational insight, and a key part of building and maintaining trust.
And in Emma’s experience, when organisations decide they need to bring in an external “expert,” those experts are never women. Even when the internal team - largely women - has deeper organisational knowledge and the capability to lead the work. It sends a clear signal about whose expertise is trusted and whose isn’t.
When comms is brought in late, women lose influence
In many New Zealand organisations, communications still gets called in after the real decisions are made - once the policy is drafted, the restructure is locked in or the stakeholder backlash has already started.
At that point, comms isn’t shaping strategy - it’s managing fallout.
Emma was clear that many of the capabilities we treat as “soft” are actually strategic.
“Leading with empathy is considered a weakness rather than a strength… but we know the value that brings to leading capable teams and delivering.”
In Aotearoa, this dynamic has played out on the national stage. Women in some of the most demanding leadership roles have shown that empathy, compassion and emotional intelligence can be powerful tools for navigating crises and bringing people together. Yet even then, those same qualities are sometimes weaponised against them - dismissed as signs of fragility or emotional excess rather than recognised as strengths. It’s a reminder that when women lead with empathy, they can be both highly effective and disproportionately scrutinised for it.
In a country where delivery depends on trust, relationships, community engagement and social licence to operate, those capabilities are risk management. When comms isn’t in the room early, organisations miss warning signs, underestimate reaction and end up in avoidable crises.
And because communications is a female-majority profession, when the function is treated as tactical, women’s expertise is treated as tactical too. The people doing the work are kept one step away from influence.
Structural barriers are still real — and are still shaping careers
Bias is only part of the story. Structural factors play an equally powerful role.
Women in comms often step into roles that are:
Under-scoped - positioned as delivery rather than strategy
Under-resourced - expected to manage crises without adequate support
Under-leveraged - reporting two or three layers below decision-making
Always-on - with crisis expectations that clash with caregiving responsibilities
These aren’t individual failings. They’re systemic design issues.
Add to that the realities many women face: raising children, supporting ageing parents, navigating menopause and carrying the emotional load of teams during difficult periods.
“With all of that, it’s not hard to see why women fall off the leadership pathway,” Emma says.
Flexible work exists, but it isn’t always normalised at senior levels. And when women do make it through, they often pay a personal price their male counterparts don’t.
“You often hear successful women talk about the sacrifices they’ve had to make around their children… you don’t hear men talk about that as often.”
Emma also pushed back on the advice women hear constantly: “Just be more confident.”
“By saying women need to be more confident, we’re saying women are the problem… Potentially the bias and those structural barriers are what’s stopping the progress.”
Crisis proves comms is strategic
Emma described a cycle every comms person recognises.
“In a crisis situation, people are actively asking - where are the comms people, our risk radars? And then it transitions back into business as usual.”
During restructures, emergency responses or media storms, communications suddenly sits at the centre. Comms people - often women - are asked to calm angry stakeholders, support anxious staff, advise senior leaders and carry the emotional load of the organisation.
Then the crisis passes, and the same people are expected to go back to being the support function.
That boom-and-bust recognition is gendered. Women in comms demonstrate leadership in crisis - judgement, risk management, stakeholder strategy - but once things settle, it’s sometimes written off as temporary support or just helping out. It earns gratitude, not influence.
If comms only has power during crises, organisations haven’t learned anything, and women in comms stay stuck in support roles.
What needs to change in NZ organisations
Emma was clear this isn’t just about women pushing harder. Organisations need to rethink how they treat communications.
Communications leaders need to be on leadership teams. Not reporting three layers down through HR or policy, but sitting at the table where decisions are made.
Bring comms in early. Engagement and reputation aren’t outputs at the end of a process - they’re design questions at the start.
Trust the expertise you already have. Stop defaulting to external voices for “serious” issues when internal teams have the capability.
Normalise flexible senior roles. Without flexibility, we keep losing experienced women mid-career.
Prioritise sponsorship, not just mentoring. Women need advocates who open doors, not just advisors who give guidance.
This International Women’s Day, the question for every New Zealand organisation isn’t just whether there are women in your comms team.
It’s whether those women are shaping decisions - early, consistently and with real authority - not just when something goes wrong. Because communications isn’t a support act. It’s a vital strategic function that determines trust, reputation and outcomes.
