Despite women’s increasing participation in education and the labor market, they remain underrepresented in leadership positions in finance. Quotas aim to accelerate change but face skepticism. The debate centers on fairness, meritocracy, and effectiveness. This study seeks to capture and compare these perspectives.

The study is based on a quantitative survey of 226 employees from several financial institutions, combined with a review of legal and academic perspectives on quotas. The survey measured attitudes on fairness, personal experiences with diversity measures, and suggestions for alternative approaches.

Findings reveal a clear gender divide: women generally support quotas as a corrective tool and to strengthen female role models, while men express skepticism, citing meritocracy, fairness, and tokenism. Contrary to expectations, younger professionals did not show stronger support. While quotas are recognized for their symbolic and cultural impact, participants emphasized that lasting change requires complementary initiatives such as leadership development, mentoring, and cultural transformation. The study concludes that quotas can accelerate change but are insufficient alone. Financial institutions should complement them with voluntary diversity initiatives, transparent promotion processes, and long-term cultural shifts.