In recent decades, the European research and innovation landscape has shifted from addressing gender inequality by focusing on “fixing women” to prioritising “fixing the institution,” with gender equality plans (GEPs) as the primary tool for transformation. While policies have spurred initiatives across EU member states and associated countries, progress remains uneven. Existing studies often attribute the gap between policy intentions and outcomes to GEP implementation issues. This article argues, however, that the complexity of framing institutional change strategies during GEP planning and design contributes equally to this policy–practice gap. Drawing on feminist institutionalism and complexity theories, this article examines how different stakeholders receive, interpret, and reshape policy ideas surrounding institutional change. It interrogates whether there is a shared definition of institutional change among those responsible for planning and implementing GEPs and discusses the (in)consistencies in the assessment of concrete initiatives as institutional change. Empirical data derive from a case study of six European institutions implementing GEPs under the Horizon 2020 project GEARING‐Roles, complemented by interviews with representatives from other 7th Framework Programme and Horizon 2020 GEP‐implementing projects. The findings reveal significant ambiguity in how institutional change is interpreted and translated into actions, with this ambiguity manifesting both among GEP implementers and the European Commission. We conclude that clearer guidelines and more consistent assessments are necessary, alongside theory‐based and practice‐oriented definitions of institutional change, which we propose as an attempt to address this gap.