University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

(USC Thesis Other)

Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Gender Role Beliefs of Male Senior Leaders in Retail and the Impact on Women’s
Advancement
by
Quendrida Whitmore
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2021

© Copyright by Quendrida Whitmore 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Quendrida Whitmore certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Alison Keller Muraszewski
Courtney Malloy
Maria Ott, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
This study applies social cognitive theory (SCT) and feminist theory to understand learned
gender roles of male senior leaders in American retail and the impact on women’s advancement.
The purpose of this study was to understand the lived experiences of c-suite men in retail and
how their perceptions influence selection bias for senior roles. Research was conducted using
purposeful qualitative interviews with eight senior leaders in American retail. These interviews
explored the participant’s experiences in childhood and the workplace. Additionally, the research
investigated the respondent’s definition of leadership, connections to gender norms, and the
selection process use for senior leaders. Findings from the study indicated that male senior
leaders learn inclusive values from childhood and workplace experiences. Personal values and
financial impact motivated the participants to change an exclusive culture. Additionally,
participants drove strategic change through a combination of awareness, action, and
accountability creating an inclusive culture and a detailed selection process. This study furthers
the definition of leadership, reducing the influence of masculine and feminine norms.
Furthermore, this study identifies the continued gender norms present in the retail industry
impacting male senior leader’s perspectives.

v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my family, my mother Dot Whitmore, my father Dr. Roy
Whitmore, my sister La Juana Whitmore, and my niece Ra Janae Whitmore who supported,
encouraged, and sometimes just silently loved me through this challenging process. You are
forever proud of me, and I want to say thank you! I am so impressed with the friendship,
encouragement, and accomplishments of this family, there is nothing like being a Whitmore! To
the Dossman and Poyner families, thank you for the love and unwavering support.
I am grateful to the strong leaders that helped me become the leader I am today. To the
inspiring women leaders who helped me complete this study by opening your network to me,
thank you! You model the way, encourage, and never hesitate to help a fellow sister in need.
Exactly how we should all be to each other. To the participants, thank you for being open,
honest, and vulnerable enough to share your insight and perspectives. I appreciate you helping
me accomplish a dream.
I am grateful to all the professors, support systems, peers, friends, and family who helped
me accomplish this goal. To my tremendous committee of inspirational women leaders who are
just amazing. How could I fail with you all in my corner? To my chair, Dr. Ott, who inspired me
in my Leadership class, encouraged me as a committee member, and saw me across the finish
line. I am grateful that you cared enough to say, yes, I will. Thank you for stepping in as my
chair and encouraging me to take the time I needed to produce a product that would make me
proud. To Dr. Keller Muraszewski, who taught me all about cognitive overload and impacted
how I look at learning problems. Thank you for being part of my committee, I knew I couldn’t
go wrong with the expert in SCT and APA. Also, to Dr. Malloy who stepped in last minute to
help me finish this dissertation. I appreciate your kindness. Finally, Dr. Grant, while we didn’t

vi
finish this project together you were instrumental in teaching me, challenging me to think
differently, and to trust my thoughts. I am grateful to have received you as a professor and a
chair. You made an extraordinary impression on me and my time at USC. Thank you, Rossier
School of Education. I am forever changed as a person, leader, and student and I am grateful.

vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: The Problem ..............................................................................................................1
Gender Bias in Leadership: A Prevalent Problem ...............................................................2
Purpose and Research Questions .........................................................................................5
Importance ...........................................................................................................................5
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................6
Methods and Definitions ......................................................................................................8
Positionality .........................................................................................................................9
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................11
Learned Gender Roles ........................................................................................................12
A Culture of Power: The Exclusive Ingroup .....................................................................18
Gender in Senior Leadership .............................................................................................22
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................27
Summary ............................................................................................................................31
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................33
Methodology and Data Sources .........................................................................................34
Research Questions and Protocol .......................................................................................38
Credibility and Data Analysis ............................................................................................42
Chapter Four: The Findings ...........................................................................................................46
The Themes and Research Questions ................................................................................48
Culture and Process ............................................................................................................50

viii
Learning: Home and the Workplace ..................................................................................71
Leadership ..........................................................................................................................82
Summary ............................................................................................................................92
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion ..........................................................................93
Discussion of Findings and Results ...................................................................................93
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................96
A Note of Caution ............................................................................................................101
Limitations and Future Research .....................................................................................102
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................104
References ....................................................................................................................................106

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Research Questions and Data Sources 35
Table 2: Research Questions and Interview Protocol 40
Table 3: Participant Demographics 47

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Hypothesis 31

1

Chapter One: The Problem
There continues to be a gap in women’s representation in leadership roles in the United
States. According to the U. S. Department of Labor, female employees represent 50% of
professional workers, yet women achieve only 4.6% of chief operating officer (CEO) positions
(Soyars, 2017). Initially, women represent 50% of employees in the workplace, which declines at
each level, ending in only 25% females in senior leadership roles (Soyars, 2017). This evidence
demonstrates that over time, female leaders’ career trajectory deviates from men, who represent
75% of senior leadership roles and over 95% of CEO roles (Soyars, 2017). Correspondingly, the
Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was passed in 1972 to fight for women’s equality, focusing on
equal rights for all people, men, and women (ERA, 2020). The ERA’s emphasis on equal rights
for all involves many areas and specifically stresses property, divorce, and notably, employment
(Alice Paul Institute, 2020). Even though the ERA passed in 1972, Virginia is only the 38th state
to ratify the law on January 27, 2020 (Alice Paul Institute, 2020). This lag in acceptance
indicates the challenges of inequality for women in the American workplace (Alice Paul
Institute, 2020). This delay is an indication of women’s continuous fight for equality.
Inversely, men hold most leadership roles as society deems them as preferred and
accepted leaders over women (Hodges & Park, 2013). Gender roles and sex-typing produce
expectations that men are leaders and women are caregivers (Hodges & Park, 2013). This sex-
typing carries over into the workplace with gender-specific roles and occupations (Cross et al.,
2017). While overall, women’s representation in the workplace is almost 50%, some industries
are heavily female-driven (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). For example, 83.3% of
meeting planners are female, as are 92% of registered nurses and 97.8% of preschool teachers
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Notably, all of these industries are considered acceptable
2

occupations for females according to gender norms (Cross et al., 2017). Specifically, in these
industries, the qualities of care and compassion are valued and symbolize stereotypical female
virtues (Cross et al., 2017). Interestingly, even with heavily female-driven industries, the average
senior leadership and executive jobs continue to be dominated by men with less than 30% female
representation (Soyars, 2017). This male dominance pattern is often represented, even in
industries that are stereotyped as preferred female occupations (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2010). An example is female athletics. According to Ladda (2015), 43% of female collegiate
teams have women coaches, while 98% of men collegiate teams have male coaches. This
example demonstrates a pattern of gender bias in leadership, which is a prevalent issue across
most industries.
Gender Bias in Leadership: A Prevalent Problem
Historically, literature examining gender bias in the workplace focuses on what women
must do to change. This change includes women increasing self-efficacy, improving influencing
skills, and learning from mentors’ appropriate workplace behavior. Contrarily, this research
focused on what men must change to enhance equity in the workplace. Specifically, this study’s
problem of practice was the learned gender roles that men hold and the subsequent impact on
women’s advancement in American corporate retail. Retail is a female-dominated industry in
lower leadership levels, as 55% of entry-level employees are women (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2010). However, similar to other sectors, retail falls prey to male dominance in the
CEO position in Fortune 500 organizations, with only 17.3% female leaders (Fortune Media,
2020). According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), many sectors struggle with
female representation in leadership. Expressly, the total percentage of women employed in 2009
was 47.3%; however, in industries resembling engineering and construction, women’s
3

representation in leadership is 8.1% or lower (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). To explore
this gender inequity in retail, this research addressed the selection practices of men senior leaders
that impact women’s advancement to senior leadership roles in retail using the lens of feminist
theory and social cognitive theory.
Retail: The Specifics
Gender bias is an issue across most industries, but this study focused specifically on
American retail and senior leaders’ selection process. Why retail? Specifically, I spent part of my
career as a vice president in retail, addressed in the positionality section in Chapter One.
Additionally, female representation in the retail industry is 55.5% for entry-level positions and is
stereotypically a female occupation (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). However, similar to
many other female-dominated sectors, retail is majority female and male-dominated at the senior
leadership position. To define retail, it is an industry that sells products and services, including
apparel and clothing (Rieley, 2014). Approximately 15.2 million people work in retail (Rieley,
2014), with 55.5% female representation (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). The annual
median wage for retail workers is approximately $22,900, while other industries’ average rate is
$35,000. Typically, retail is considered a female-driven sector due to the stereotypes linked to
the industry. Particularly, there is a perception that one needs to excel at service and compassion
for the customer to be successful (Cross et al., 2017). According to this concept, retail is labeled
as feminine and is an acceptable occupation for women according to societal gender roles (Cross
et al., 2017). While retail does have more female leaders than other industries, there is still a gap.
Essentially, the average percentage of female retail workers is over 50%, but the senior
leadership representation is less than 30% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Additionally,
according to Fortune Media (2020), retail companies represent 75 organizations on the Fortune
4

500 list, with 13 establishments having a female CEO, equating to less than 18%. With the retail
industry having 17.3% female CEOs, it has more female CEO representation than the average
segment at 4.6% (Soyars, 2017). However, retail starts with 55.5% female representation, a
difference of 38.2% from total female employees in the retail industry to those advanced to the
CEO position (Fortune Media, 2020).
Interestingly, another symptom of gender role inequality for women-accepted
occupations is pay. As pointed out by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020), retail’s average
wage is almost 53% less than the sum of other occupations. Specifically, in retail, a female-
driven industry, pay is less than the average worker in other sectors (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2020). Additionally, pay for women in retail is 76% of men’s earnings, compared to
80% of the industry average of female wages to males in the same jobs (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2011). The importance of this pay disparity is emphasized by the power dynamics
between men and women. Specifically, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020) indicated men
dominate top executive jobs, meaning they hold more power to make the decisions. The U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020) stated that decision-making, problem-solving, and leadership
skills are competencies required to succeed as a top executive. Conspicuously, these abilities are
stereotypically perceived as male talents in American society (Cross et al., 2017). According to
Cross et al. (2017), male gender roles are stereotypically leadership, assertiveness, and
decisiveness. These competencies align with masculine professions having power and status,
producing a cycle of inequity and lack of access for women (Cross et al., 2017). As previously
indicated, the research shows women are excluded from top executive positions and paid less in
retail than in other sectors (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Understanding bias in the
selection process supported by learned gender roles is a step to correcting inequity in the process.
5

Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this research was to understand the lived experiences of c-suite men in
retail and how their perceptions influence selection bias for senior roles. This study explored the
extent to which men’s gender bias produces a lack of advancement for women and limits their
power in corporate retail, excluding women from senior leadership roles. Subsequently, resilient
societal gender roles create a labor division that must be challenged to drive change (Starr &
Zurbriggen, 2016). This study used a strength-based theory of change approach for female
leaders. Specifically, I hold that women are qualified to be selected for senior leadership roles,
but men who hold the power to decide do not choose them. This approach translates to men
changing, not women, as men have the power and privilege. Four research questions were
explored in this qualitative interview-based study:
1. How do men describe leadership?
2. What competencies do men perceive as necessary for success in senior leadership roles?
3. What stages in men’s lives, if any at all, do they learn about inclusion?
4. What process and criteria do men use to select candidates for senior leadership roles?
Importance
Female selection and representation in senior leadership roles are critical to address
because women’s representation in organizations increases profitability and productivity
(McIntyre et al., 2011). The lack of women in vital roles shows a lack of female representation
and, in turn, negatively impacts an organization’s success (McIntyre et al., 2011). Furthermore,
increased female representation in leadership improves equitable selection for senior leadership
roles and reduces imbalances in the workplace (Cross et al., 2017). While manager levels today
include more women, there is still a theme to occupations, such as care providers, administrative
6

assistants, and the service industry, that are still overwhelmingly female. These themes indicate
that equity for women has had slow growth over the years. Power in American society is
connected to social, financial, and political status (Acker, 2006). Men hold the top spots in all
these areas, with women showing little progress over the years. According to the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (2009b), in 2008, women contributed 36% of the family earnings, a 10% growth
since 1970. Further supporting the concept of gender roles and financial power, only 26.6% of
wives earn more than their husbands, an 8.8% increase from 1987 (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2009a). These data indicate an undervaluing of female contributions, impacting
selection and advancement (Cross et al., 2017). The percent of women’s contributions to
household earnings and the ERA’s continued push for women’s equity indicates there is still an
issue with gender bias.
Theoretical Framework
This study used Bandura’s (2005) social cognitive theory and the feminist theory to
research men’s learned gender roles and their impact on how men select senior leaders. Social
cognitive theory indicates that humans learn from the social system around them (Bandura,
2005). Specifically, individuals, behavior, and the environment all interact and influence each
other (Bandura, 2005). Social cognitive theory points out that humans make intentional plans for
the future based on their background, including occupation selection (Bandura, 2005). According
to Bandura (2005), learning does not have to be intentional; modeling, translating, implementing,
and adopting allows individuals to learn. This concept reinforces that people, the environment,
and behaviors interconnect in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2005). The use of this theory
reflects the impact of gender roles on the career progression of women. Appropriately, adults
select careers based on accepted societal norms associated with their gender (Starr & Zurbriggen,
7

2016). Additionally, men in power choose top executives based on learned gender roles. In this
problem of practice, Bandura’s theory helps examine the effect of the organization’s culture on
male senior leaders’ perceptions and behavior, impacting female leaders (Bandura, 2005).
This study also leveraged feminist theory to research the problem. Specifically, the study
analyzed the power and privilege dynamics in hierarchies resulting in men’s dominance over
women (Ferguson, 2017). According to Ferguson (2017), feminist theory looks to advance the
lives of men and women collectively. This theory seeks to balance power and improve equity for
all parties (Ferguson, 2017). Feminist theory is focused on growth and change to improve the
process (Ferguson, 2017). Understanding how things arrived at their current state helps identify
the part of the process that needs to change to increase equity for all stakeholders (Ferguson,
2017). Specifically, the goal is to understand how men select senior leaders and identify the part
of the process that holds bias and inequity, thus isolating what needs to change to gain fairness
for women in the workplace.
Investigating the intersection of social cognitive theory and feminist theory in learned
gender roles leads to understanding power dynamics in the workplace that creates inequity for
women. Notably, I assume male leaders who subscribe to gender roles in the workplace impact
women negatively in the organization (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016). These learned gender roles
reduce women’s opportunities to lead due to men’s biased selection process (Cross et al., 2017).
Additionally, gender roles shape the behaviors that label women as caring and nurturing,
encouraging stereotypes in the workplace (Cross et al., 2017). These stereotypes favor male
promotions to senior leadership positions above women, allowing men to retain
power (Carlin et al., 2018). Leveraging social cognitive theory helps examine how the
environment influences gender roles for both men and women (Bandura, 2005). Additionally, the
8

feminist theory then explores these perceptions that change workplace behavior, ultimately
impacting the equitable treatment of women (Ferguson, 2017).
Methods and Definitions
This study’s design approach consisted of qualitative interviews that examined the
process and meaning of the problem. The research questions focused on understanding how men
select senior leaders, utilizing a qualitative approach. The intention was to interview senior male
leaders in retail. These male senior retail leaders focused on c-suite executive leaders. Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, I leveraged Zoom, an application that allowed for video and audio
capabilities for meetings because in-person interviews were not available. I used open-ended
interview questions with follow-up questions to gather a deeper understanding of leaders’
thought and interview processes when selecting senior leaders.
Additionally, this section’s definitions include senior male leaders, female leaders, and
the retail industry. Male senior leaders are defined as men in c-suite executive positions. Men
consist of all people that identify as male and express their gender to be male. The definition of
male senior retail leaders included all American men holding such positions, with no limitations
on race, ethnicity, age, and ability. Women were defined as people who identify as female and
express their gender to be female. The leadership position held does not limit the women
identified in the problem statement. Retail included all American organizations that sell products
and services started in America. These businesses continue to operate within the United States
and include brick and mortar and online establishments. The country of focus is the United States
due to American gender roles impacting society and the ideas of masculinity and femininity.

9

Positionality
Identifying my positionality in this study, I most recently was a female vice president in
retail and accept that I have bias that may impact how I analyzed the research. Specifically, I am
a female who has witnessed biased selection processes resulting in senior leadership positions
void of female leaders. Additionally, I have worked in retail organizations with 50% to 77%
female employees, but senior vice president positions and above were skewed to male
dominance. Consequently, reflective memos were essential to managing possible bias of thought
and experience because of my positionality. I also leveraged peers at the University of Southern
California to review and identify possible researcher bias in my process and interviews.
Identifying underlying beliefs was vital to ensuring the credibility and transferability of
the study. My perspective was that society has taught individuals gender roles that create a
division of labor and inequity in the workplace. These gender roles have impacted groups and
individuals, giving power to men and withholding influence from women. My ontology assumes
that society’s external forces have taught men, but they can unlearn and behave differently. My
perception was that women’s advancement of that men give up power and value equity over
privilege. The research focused on understanding the process men use to determine senior
leaders and subsequently identify areas to shift the power structure in senior leader gender roles.
I expect that most men see the world through their paradigm and experience. Consequently, the
intention is not to impact women negatively; it is to fulfill the masculine role learned at a young
age. The study expanded my understanding of men’s experience and helped me explore a fuller
picture of gender in the workplace.

10

Organization of the Dissertation
The content of the dissertation includes the introduction to the problem and theoretical
framework in chapter one. Chapter Two focuses on the literature review, barriers to women in
leadership, and men’s power position in the hierarchy. Additionally, Chapter Two includes the
conceptual framework. Chapter Three includes the methodology and the design of the study,
including coding and analyzing the data. Finally, Chapters Four and Five covered the research
findings and discussed the results, and further research recommended to advance the discussion.
References and the appendix gave additional details to allow the reader to identify sources used
and better understand the conceptual framework.

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Previous literature is plentiful on women in leadership and the lack of female
representation in top executive roles. Much of the prior research has explored how women need
to change to advance to the top ranks. Specifically, traditional literature examines women’s
efficacious behavior, focus, and thought process to increase female representation in senior
leadership. From increasing education level, training, and leadership skills, to speaking up or
leaning in to improve the female status, women changing has commonly been the focus. Other
concepts include increasing women’s self-efficacy, work-life balance issues, and reducing the
impact of stereotype threat; all focused on women making things better for themselves (Carlin et
al., 2018). While many women have an internal strength and power to change their situation, it is
important to remember that the marginalized group rarely has the executive power to create
change, including gender bias in the workplace (Acker, 2006).
The power dynamic of men at the top of the hierarchy and women in the marginalized
group is evident in American retail. As previously mentioned, retail is a female-dominated
industry at entry-level positions; however, men represent over 80% of Fortune 500 retail
companies’ CEOs (Fortune Media, 2020). These data indicate a familiar trend of men being in
top leadership positions and the group with the highest status and power. Because men are the
group in power, this dissertation explored what men have to do to change bias behavior and
disseminate power fairly. Specifically, this study explored bias issues in learned gender roles and
how men need to change to produce a culture of equity. This literature review investigated
gender roles and how they are learned in childhood and move into adulthood, particularly how
men learn American society’s definition of appropriate gender roles and the influence of these
roles in the workplace. This literature review investigated learned gender roles in American
12

culture and the masculine and feminine stereotypes attributed to these roles. Additionally,
considering this study’s stance that men must change, the literature review explored hierarchical
power in the workplace and men’s motivation to change cultures of inequity. Finally, this
literature review explored the advancement and selection processes for senior leadership and the
networks, access, and information not afforded to women.
Learned Gender Roles
According to Bem (1981), gender roles are learned at preschool age. Schemas learned
from the environment, parents, schools, and social settings construct sex-typing and gender roles
(Bem, 1981). Sex-typing comes from society assigning behavioral characteristics, a masculine or
feminine label (Bem, 1981). These schemas are absorbed. From the toys children are encouraged
to play with to the clothes parents buy for them, these items all underscore proper behavior for
girls and boys (Bem, 1981). Children are rewarded for acting appropriately, as approved by
society, and punished for operating outside the expected gender roles (Bem, 1981). Specifically,
these roles defined girls as weak, nurturing, and polite, where boys are strong, assertive, and
rambunctious (Bem, 1981). Sex-type roles teach girls they should be motivated to serve and that
boys should push to accomplish their goals (Bem, 1981).
According to Starr and Zurbriggen (2016), children’s environments create cultural
paradigms that carry into adulthood. These gender paradigms include how children and adults
learn how to behave, what to be, and whom to include in certain activities and groups (Starr &
Zurbriggen, 2016). Individuals learn gender roles through observing and modeling behavior,
which teaches people appropriate conduct (Cohen, 2013). These masculine and feminine roles
encourage stereotypes and discrimination from childhood activities through adulthood,
ultimately materializing in the workplace (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016). Similarly, Kulish (2010)
13

pointed out that the interaction between a person and their social circle impacts ideas of gender
roles and encourages them to fit into the accepted societal position. Multiple social scientists
have indicated that individuals assimilate to the expected roles learned from the environment or
society around them to be included and considered good (Hodges & Park, 2013).
Good Woman and Good Man
According to Hodges and Park (2013), a basic human need is the need to belong. These
authors pointed out individuals want a self-view of embodying moral behavior and fulfilling
people’s expected roles (Hodges & Park, 2013). This sense of belonging comes from society’s
definition of what a good man is, along with what a good woman is (Hodges & Park, 2013).
Additionally, Hodges and Park (2013) explained that belonging and fitting into society’s
accepted gender roles allow individuals to have a positive self-image and high efficacy regarding
their place in American culture. Gender roles have masculine and feminine labels and teach
children what is acceptable in their environment (Bem, 1981), helping them understand what
good and moral looks like in cultural norms (Hodges & Park, 2013). Specifically, gender roles
tell adults how to be virtuous as men or women and influence workplace culture (Hodges &
Park, 2013). These gender roles support specific occupations for men versus women and
encourage individuals to follow the rules to belong (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016). Additionally,
according to Hodges and Park (2013), professional and parent roles differ significantly for men
and women. While women have increased their professional presence outside the home, society
values the female role as a mother, increasing conflict in women’s self-identity and gender role
(Hodges & Park, 2013).
Learned gender roles are important in society and continue into the workplace, building
an organizational norm in job selection and defined leadership. These gender norms create
14

stereotypes in the workplace and support discrimination and biased behavior at all levels of an
organization (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016). There is an indication of congruence for men and
incongruence for women when looking at the intersection of home and professional norms. Men
are thought of as virtuous fathers and professionals when they exhibit certain characters and
behaviors (Hodges & Park, 2013). A worthy professional man and father in society is defined as
independent and strong, offering stability and providing economically for the family (Hodges &
Park, 2013). These roles are congruent with each other, and as a result, men are seen as leaders in
society and the workplace (Hodges & Park, 2013). Contrarily, a good woman and mother is
defined in society as giving, caring, and selfless (Hodges & Park, 2013). It is acceptable for her
to depend on her male counterpart financially, and a worthy woman shows affection and
compassion (Hodges & Park, 2013).
Similarly, Mavin et al. (2014) noted American civilization believes characteristics
appropriate for women include being empathic, caring, and subordinate. These qualities are not
harmonious with being a leader in the workplace and, as a result, creates tension for women and
others accepting females in top leadership roles (Hodges & Park, 2013). Additional conflict
happens internally for women who can experience self-hatred due to the confusion and conflict
between stereotypical masculine and feminine traits (Mavin et al., 2014). Mistreatment from
others, called micro-aggression, appears in organizations where women step outside their
acceptable feminine role (Mavin et al., 2014). Mavin et al. (2014) indicated microaggressions are
verbal and non-verbal subtle slights shown towards female leaders. This conflict in learned roles
causes women to self-select out of top leadership roles but, more importantly, creates a culture of
men in power not seeing women as leaders (Kulish, 2010). Congruency in roles as parents and
professionals is essential to an individual feeling efficacious in their position and belonging to
15

society (Hodges & Park, 2013). The divergent definitions of good women and leadership
continue to create conflict in how women are viewed in the workplace (Kulish, 2010).
Leadership: Gender Defined
Society defines gender roles and how individuals should behave to be seen as positive
members of the culture. These definitions include competencies that fit into different jobs and
positions viewed as masculine or feminine. According to Acker (2006), men and women
experience jobs and occupations in very different ways because of sex-role assumptions. Gender
segregation or division of labor is created when women and men select jobs and careers aligned
with society’s expectations (Cohen, 2013). Cohen (21013) pointed out that both genders continue
to select gender sex-typed occupations even when college-educated. Acker (2006) indicated that
when women choose a masculine career, they prefer acceptable feminine roles. An example is in
the medical industry; females tend to be in pediatrics instead of in the surgical arenas (Acker,
2006).
As pointed out by Bem (1981), we learn society’s expectations at a young age and carry
them over throughout our lives, including in the workplace. These definitions are learned from
the environment through the home, school, church, and social settings (Bem, 1981). When
individuals follow definitions created by American culture, they are rewarded with increased
feelings of inclusion, belonging, and acceptance (Hodges & Park, 2013). Specifically, to be seen
as good and moral, women must demonstrate compassion, inclusion, and care. Conversely, men
must demonstrate assertiveness, decisiveness, and self-assuredness, even in the workplace (Cross
et al., 2017). As we begin to translate these definitions into the organizations, many stereotypes
are held as norms, meaning many see them as accurate. Typically, leadership is defined as a
masculine role congruent with the definition of a good man (Gipson et al., 2017). Men in
16

leadership are decisive, assertive, able to hold the team and the organization accountable (Gipson
et al., 2017). Specifically, competitiveness and financial dominance are congruent with
masculine qualities in American gender roles (Kelan, 2017). Female leadership qualities are seen
as more democratic, inclusive, and developmental but are not valued enough to be selected for
top leadership positions (Gipson et al., 2017). Additionally, women are seen as emotional
leaders, whereas men are seen as logical, showing no emotion (Lease et al., 2019). Interestingly,
workers prefer a boss focused on teamwork, development, and inclusivity (De Mascia, 2015).
These characteristics are stereotypically feminine, but women remain underrepresented in
leadership positions (De Mascia, 2015). De Mascia (2015) pointed out that transformational
leadership is on the rise. Women tend to be more focused on this cohesive team-building style
but continue to experience barriers to top leadership positions (De Mascia, 2015). This study
explored whether prescribed masculine and feminine qualities create a division of labor that
excludes women from senior leadership.
According to Acker (2009), stereotypes create inequity regimes. Acker (2006) pointed
out that organizations have norms that result in inequity across gender, class, and racial lines.
This author indicated that organizations have policies, processes, acceptable and unacceptable
behavior that maintain a culture of injustice (Acker, 2009). These societal and organizational
norms create a division of labor or gender segregation in different occupations (Kulish, 2010).
This division, driven by corporate culture, creates an environment where self-selection or
exclusion is the norm (Kulish, 2010). Also, this culture is inflicted by individuals in power who
apply gender stereotypes to the workplace (Kulish, 2010). Typically, when women self-select
into a female-accepted gender role, it is due to the labor division at home (Cohen, 2013),
17

meaning women usually have more responsibility at home, caring for children and aging parents
(Kray et al., 2017).
Historically, gender norms identify women as homemakers and caretakers and men as the
family’s financial providers (Kray et al., 2017). This gender segregation at home continues to
impact and influence women’s options in the workplace (Cohen, 2013). In particular, women
may self-select based on work-home balance, but additionally, men hold bias and do not see
women as successful leaders outside of the home (Kulish, 2010). According to Kulish (2010),
attempts to choose socially acceptable occupations cause women to select conventional feminine
careers. Additionally, gender roles trigger men to exclude women from top leadership positions
based on stereotypes and discrimination (Cross et al., 2017)., When women and men subscribe to
gender roles, they create biases in the workplace, limiting opportunities for women (Cross et al.,
2017). Again, this is what Acker (2009) pointed to as inequity regimes, or cultures of norms that
maintain imbalance for marginalized groups. This inequity culture excludes women from top
leadership positions and elevates men to positions of power (Ferguson, 2017). These privileged
positions create a homogeneous culture, keeping men at the top, and women in middle and lower
management levels (Cross et al., 2017). Acker (2006) pointed out that stereotypes of what is
required to succeed at work tend to be masculine, creating an environment where women feel
they have to adapt their behavior to be more male. Additionally, this masculine behavior creates
a culture that is not comfortable for women and may decrease efficacy (Acker, 2006).
Then, why not have women act like men in leadership roles to be accepted? It is
important to note that there is backlash and exclusion for individuals who do not follow defined
gender roles (Mavin et al., 2014). For women to be received as good and moral, they must act
per the prescribed gender roles (Hodges & Park, 2013). Women who do not operate within these
18

expected roles are seen as bossy, unapproachable, and mean (Acker, 2006). Mavin et al. (2014)
agreed that women who have masculine tendencies might experience disappointment in
themselves, but others in their social network also penalize them. Barriers are put in place for
women who do not act as expected, punishing them by not listening, excluding, or valuing their
message or contributions (Kray et al., 2017). Shapiro et al. (2011) mentioned that women are
expected to be powerful and unfeminine to get the job, causing a conflict internally for female
leaders. These actions and attitudes overwhelming come from people who see gender roles as
fixed to sex (Kray et al., 2017). Specifically, an individual’s biological sex equates to being
better leaders or caretakers (Kray et al., 2017). The idea of sex-type occupations reinforces
norms that support male dominance and hierarchies (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016). These norms
produce a culture of power and privilege for men, excluding women from top status positions in
the workplace and American society.
A Culture of Power: The Exclusive Ingroup
Historically, literature about women in leadership firmly covers what women need to do
to improve the culture of inequity. Some authors explore what men must do, as they are in a
power position and use privilege to keep the biased culture at the status quo (DiTomaso et al.,
2007). Consequently, because of status and privilege, men are considered part of the elite group
that has the power to include or exclude the outgroup or marginalized people (DiTomaso et al.,
2007). Heemskerk and Fennema (2014) also pointed out that the lack of inclusion of different
representations is a signal of elite closure, meaning opportunities are not open to diverse
representation. This elite ingroup strives to stay in power, creating a culture of hegemony or
sameness in the top leadership positions (DiTomaso et al., 2007).
19

Notably, organizational workdays are typically set in a White man’s image, meaning that
work is their priority (Acker, 2006). They can work many hours because the female is
responsible for taking care of the home (Acker, 2006). Women continue to have more
responsibility for home duties, thus perpetuating the workplace’s inequity and labeling men as
the preferred leader (Acker, 2006). Singh et al. (2010) pointed out that exclusive organizational
environments that embrace stereotypes and learned gender roles lead to a lack of selection of
women. Additionally, inequity constructs a long-term system that benefits men from a pay,
stability, access, and opportunity perspective (DiTomaso et al., 2007). The importance of solving
gender inequity in the workplace is that balanced gender representation produces success for
organizations from a talent and profit perspective (McIntyre et al., 2011).
Culture of Hegemony
Lease et al., (2019) connected hegemony directly to masculinity by defining it as
affirming male power through competition and others’ exclusion. Specifically, power is
exercised over the marginalized group in the workplace using stereotypical masculine
characteristics of assertiveness, domination, and action (Lease et al., 2019). Acker (2009) called
this internalized control, meaning legitimized male power and men’s privilege in the elite
ingroup (Acker, 2006). Shapiro et al. (2011) also pointed out that in American gender norms,
power and masculinity are aligned, and society often uses similar language to define both.
Masculinity and power are often described as competitive, decisive, and authoritative (Shapiro et
al., 2011). These definitions translate to the workplace and give men an advantage over women
(Shapiro et al., 2011). This advantage keeps men in top positions, the elite group, and limits
women to lower-level management positions (DiTomaso et al., 2007). Typically, the elite group
consists of White males, considered the ingroup (DiTomaso et al., 2007). Men who believe in
20

fixed gender roles are motivated to uphold sex-type norms as it benefits them from a power and
inclusion perspective (Kray et al., 2017). As Kray et al. (2017) pointed out, to keep their status in
society and the workplace, men behave in the appropriate gender norms that underscore the
dominance of men over women. This status motivates men to uphold learned gender roles and
accept stereotypes that men are better at certain things, making them superior to women (Kray et
al., 2017). Kelan (2017) pointed out that upholding an environment of hegemony keeps men in
power, and they profit from being a part of the masculine inner circle. Kelan (2017) also stated
that not only do men reinforce the preference for dominance through similarities, but they also
distance themselves from women by pointing out the differences. This identification raises the
question of what men’s motivation is to change societal norms that position them to be in power.
Men’s Motivation to Change
DiTomaso et al. (2007) indicated that power is given to those selected to top positions.
This power translates into access, pay, decision making, and contributions at the highest levels
(DiTomaso et al., 2007). When women are not selected for top leadership positions, they have
less authority and decreased organizational investments (DiTomaso et al., 2007). Considering
power comes with access, pay, and privilege, why would men in power relinquish the top spots?
Many do not. According to DiTomaso et al. (2007), elite groups, meaning men in power, support
division, and accumulate opportunities from women who are in marginalized factions. Shapiro et
al. (2011) agreed men use power to keep status and increase personal accomplishments, gaining
them more power. According to Kray et al. (2017), men are motivated to be seen to fit into a
masculine stereotype. Men understand that defining themselves as masculine is representing
themselves as dominant and the preferred group (Kray et al., 2017). Learned gender norms allow
men to justify a system of inequity, buying into the fact that masculine is better while distancing
21

themselves from women (Kray et al., 2017). Lease et al., (2019) agreed with others that men who
see themselves as traditionally masculine self-rate themselves as inferior at communicating
emotions and sharing other’s perspectives, typically feminine qualities. To maintain a male
power hierarchy, men endorse learned gender roles in the household and workplace (Lease et al.,
2019). Expressly, Acker (2006) claimed men have the self-interest to stay in control, meaning
women must continue to be marginalized to sustain the power dynamic of men on top.
Through masculine power levels in executive leadership, men hoard opportunities,
continuing the trend of inequity for marginalized groups (Kray et al., 2017). As Kray et al.
(2017) also pointed out, both men and women support a system of inequity, but how they enforce
the structure is very different. As these authors indicate, men endorse a culture of supremacy by
upholding learned gender roles. At the same time, women unwillingly support the system of
injustice due to a sense of powerlessness to change the situation (Kray et al., 2017). By
supporting this system of inequity, men strengthen their status while reinforcing the male elite
ingroup status (Kray et al., 2017). According to DiTomaso et al. (2007), men’s motivation to
create equitable workplaces for women must include their willingness to share power, economic
advantages, and in some cases, be subordinate to women. Specifically, DiTomaso et al. (2007)
indicated that learned gender roles must be put aside for a more inclusive leadership idea.
Actual change, meaning men giving up their advantage, is many times only produced
with a threat to financial stability or a loss of some kind for men, as proven through different
equity laws over time (Acker, 2006). An example is California’s Women on Boards 2018 law,
which required at least one female on the executive board of directors by the end of 2019
(California Secretary of State, 2020). The results of this law demonstrated that boards of
directors were exclusively male. These boards only included women because the law changed
22

and threatened to fine the companies that were not in compliance. As a result, a position of
power had to be given to a female leader, shifting from male exclusivity.
Another example is that federal affirmative action had a financial impact on organizations
that did not adhere to the new laws (Acker, 2006), again demonstrating that the threat of a fine
resulted in opportunities and power shifting. One question this study strove to understand was
whether do men who identify as allies to women leaders recognize their own bias that impacts
their actions. The right words are not enough. The right actions are needed to change inequity,
and this action is required from the advantaged male senior leader (de Vries, 2015). De Vries
(2015) pointed out that men must increase their involvement in changing gender inequality and
be as passionate about this change as they are with other change initiatives they lead.
Leveraging the foundational research by West and Zimmerman in 1987 about doing
gender, de Vries (2015) indicated that, to change gender bias, organizations must stop the
behavior that upholds stereotypical gender norms and change the definition of gender. Kelan
(2017) agreed and defined “doing gender” as acting in ways that privilege masculine acts and
behaviors over feminine actions and behaviors. De Vries (2015) indicated that men driving
gender change would shift the organization hierarchy’s power dynamics and increase equity for
female leaders. Precisely, words must match actions, showing a commitment to changing gender
inequity, or undoing gender (de Vries, 2015). The step this study explored is the act of senior
leadership selection by men in power. What actions must take place to increase female
representation and build a fair workplace?
Gender in Senior Leadership
The “glass ceiling” is a common term used to describe an invisible barrier between
women and the top executive positions (Acker, 2009). Notably, experts have indicated that these
23

barriers or biases are present throughout women’s workplace experience, not just at the top
(Acker, 2009). Exclusive environments that favor masculine leadership create workplace
obstacles for women at all leadership levels (DiTomaso et al., 2007). There are different issues
causing bias selection. Access, networks, data, and homogeneous environments all keep men in
power over women. Workplace hours and expectations invented by men assume that women
cannot keep up, perpetuating gender inequity in organizations (Acker, 2009). These stereotypes
continue to keep women out of senior leadership roles, maintaining men’s power dynamic at the
top of the hierarchy (Acker, 2009).
Interestingly, women-led organizations have higher sales and profits when they have 50%
female employees, but women continue to be selected less often than men for top roles (Flabbi et
al., 2016). Ryan and Haslam (2008) suggested that women are chosen as CEO at struggling
companies, a concept called the glass cliff. These are high-stakes situations for the top female
leader with the odds stacked against winning in these organizations (Ryan & Haslam, 2008).
Failure would support the gender narrative put in place by men and society, and winning would
say there was no place to go but up, either way undermining the female CEO (Kray et al., 2017).
As mentioned, there is a definition of what a good leader looks like, congruent with
stereotypical masculine qualities. These qualities influence who is promoted to senior leadership
roles, showing a bias toward men for specific functions (Acker, 2009). Benschop and van den
Brink (2012) explained the concept of a leaky pipeline, meaning that, at the point of selection,
the prospects of women being selected for top leadership positions drop off dramatically.
Expressly, female talent is lost throughout the entire pipeline, and at the time of senior leadership
interviews, there are fewer women to include (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). Furthermore,
24

assessment gaps in decision making for senior leadership selection allow biased conclusions in
the interview and advancement process (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012).
Flabbi et al. (2016) pointed out that same-sex bias occurs in performance evaluations.
Bias in performance reviews and assessments influence promotions to senior leadership (Flabbi
et al., 2016). Furthermore, supervisors are influenced by learned bias regarding gender roles
(Acker, 2006). These biases allow supervisors to judge employees differently based on perceived
stereotypes (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). This bias is reflected in performance reviews in
which male supervisors tend to rate females more harshly than men with the same performance
due to a gap in connection and communication (Flabbi et al., 2016). Additionally, women self-
rate their performance more harshly, creating a situation where bias keeps women limited to their
current workstation and promotes men, with similar or worse results (Latu et al., 2013).
Furthermore, during the selection process, women are assumed to have family
responsibilities that may interfere with work duties (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). It is
important to note that van den Brink and Benschop (2012) indicated that men are rarely asked
about family duties and how they will balance home and work, indicating that the selection
process is different for men and women. Women contend with gender stereotypes of not being
assertive or having preferred masculine leadership traits (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012).
Additionally, there is a lack of transparency in the selection process. This lack of
transparency creates a mystery of how candidates are filtered in or out of the process (van den
Brink & Benschop, 2012). There is even a lack of transparency when there is an open position,
allowing decision-makers to personally select who applies for the jobs while leveraging their
network internally and externally (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). This study examined
whether a critical theme of senior leadership selection is a lack of data, team feedback, scorecard
25

results, and transparency. Specifically, hiring managers use networks, status, and similarities in
leadership selection, keeping women from the top ranks. As Acker (2009) pointed out, gender
bias impacting choice in the workplace is challenging to identify. This bias is legitimized and
cast as part of the unspoken masculine norm of the culture (Acker, 2009). This injustice further
impacts resources and access for women in leadership, keeping them from institutional power
and leadership positions (Singh et al., 2010).
Access, Networks, and Information
In American retail, stereotypes based on gender roles and lack of access to power
reinforce challenges for women attempting to advance to senior leadership positions. Implicit
bias learned from societal gender roles negatively impacts female progression and creates gender
division of labor (Hoyt & Simon, 2011). This marginalization of women leaders includes a lack
of access to data, promotion opportunities, and social settings (Singh et al., 2010). This exclusive
admittance to networks increases prospects for male leaders while excluding female leaders
(Singh et al., 2010). According to Singh et al. (2010), men are typically part of the corporate
elite, controlling access to information, networks, promotions, and jobs. There is a gap in access
to information and resources for women, creating a culture of exclusion, lack of belonging, and
leadership selection bias (Singh et al., 2010). Expressly, women experience a lack of information
flow in organizations that are majority male-led (Singh et al., 2010). In this same organization,
men are more likely to have access to information (Singh et al., 2010). This restriction in access
includes barriers to the networks that hold the data (Singh et al., 2010). Consequently, men’s
selection process excludes women from power positions through biased perceptions of what a
leader represents (Singh et al., 2010).
26

Other authors have agreed with van den Brink and Benschop (2012) that women do not
have access to the male inner circle and, if they did, do not know the rules of engagement,
limiting the impact they have on the male senior elite. Also, a homophily culture creates an
environment where individuals prefer to communicate with similar people, perpetuating a lack of
information flow to women (Singh et al., 2010). According to DiTomaso et al. (2007), the male
ingroup has power and authority in the workplace by owning access, the right to administer
rewards, promotions, and punishment. Additionally, these authors indicated that an
organizational culture of bias and inequity promotes men to senior leadership roles while
excluding women from advancement opportunities (DiTomaso et al., 2007). Access to
information and networks has a significant impact on equity in power and pay, having a long-
lasting effect on building a life and being self-sufficient (Cohen, 2013).
Homogeneous Preferences: A Comfy Cozy Workplace
Hiring and selection practices perpetuate gender bias in many ways. Senior leaders are
recruited through social networks of decision-makers (Acker, 2009). Leveraging social networks
that usually reflect a level of sameness continues to allow a homogeneous workplace. Systems of
elite White men afford males exclusive access and benefits that keep them in power (van den
Brink & Benschop, 2012). This uniform environment excludes females but, more importantly,
makes men feel comfortable surrounded by other men that behave, believe, speak, and interpret
the same as they do (Acker, 2009). This interpretation is vital to keeping women out of senior
leadership positions (Acker, 2009). One key consideration in senior leadership selection involves
others’ interpretation of someone’s ability or competence (Acker, 2009).
Acker points out (2006), gender bias influences the perception of one’s competence for a
position or job. Specifically, the person or board interviewing brings in previous preference and
27

ideas of who is suited for the work and who is not (Acker, 2009). The male elite ingroup select,
help, and network with others like them, leaving women excluded from the benefits (van den
Brink & Benschop, 2012). Men use their power to keep them in the elite group, not allowing
space for the marginalized group at the top (Kelan, 2017). Kelan (2017) points out men looking
for top leaders select the competitive hero, upholding the hegemony environment that they have
carefully built, benefited, and profited from. Learned gender roles are part of gender bias and
affect the interview process’s outcome, leaving women out of the top elite executive roles
(Acker, 2009). There are many areas that must change to improve equity for women in the
workplace. The conceptual framework explores how social cognitive theory and feminist theory
interact to create the situation of learned gender roles and power inequity in the workplace.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of the study is grounded in two theories: social cognitive
theory and feminist theory. Bandura’s social cognitive theory states that the environment,
behavior, and individuals interact and influence intentional and unintentional learning (Bandura,
2005). Gender roles created from this learning elevate men as dominant over women. Feminist
theory points out that power and privilege come from hierarchies and creates inequity and
marginalization for females (Ferguson, 2017). Consequently, men in senior leadership roles
make advancement decisions based on beliefs created through bias and stereotypes (Starr &
Zurbriggen, 2016). Subsequently, women are kept from power because stereotypes and
discrimination reinforce the division of labor; specifically, men and women have defined roles in
society based on gender (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016).
Applying social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2005)to learned gender roles highlights the
relationship between the environment, behavior, and people (Bandura, 2005). Social cognitive
28

theory points out that humans plan, act, and reflect on the social systems around them (Bandura,
2005). These social systems include people, environments, and behavior, which all interact and
influence each other (Bandura, 2005). This theory also points out that humans are intentional and
have future-directed plans (Bandura, 2005). Furthermore, Bandura also points out that learning
does not have to be deliberate or have a specific response (2005). Learning can happen through
modeling guiding principles, translating, implementing, and adopting from the social system
(Bandura, 2005). Reinforcing that people, the environment, and behaviors are interconnected in
social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2005). As previously explained, settings such as school,
family, friends, church, and other social systems teach gender roles at a young age (Starr &
Zurbriggen, 2016). Social cognitive theory expresses that adults select careers based on accepted
societal norms associated with their gender (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016). Moreover, group
behaviors impact people in society (Bandura, 2005). In particular, leaders who subscribe to
gender roles in the workplace impact women in the organization (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016).
These learned gender roles reduce opportunities for women to lead, and as a result, lessens
advancement opportunities (Cross et al., 2017). Notably, the environments that instill gender
roles create the perception that leaders are male based on their sex and adherence to masculine
norms and behavior (Cross et al., 2017).
Additionally, gender roles create the behaviors that label women as caring and nurturing,
encouraging stereotypes in the workplace (Cross et al., 2017). Specifically, social cognitive
theory helps examine how the environment influences perceptions of gender roles for both men
and women (Bandura, 2005). These perceptions then influence workplace behavior, ultimately
impacting women’s equitable treatment (Cross et al., 2017). It is important to note that, while
this study supports the theory that masculine and feminine behavior is learned, there are studies
29

opposed to this concept. The opposition called out specifically by Poljakovic and Dodig (2015)
is that children tend towards specific activities or images at a very young age, before society can
influence them. These authors also stated that men’s and women’s brains develop differently,
indicating that human sexuality should not be cast aside when looking at gender roles and how
they develop (Poljakovic & Dodig, 2015). I assert that even if the brain develops differently,
American society continues to reinforce the concept that male is better than female, not just
different. I explored, applying social cognitive theory, whether men use stereotypes to favor male
promotions to senior leadership positions over women. If this is the case, do they understand the
limitations this may put on their organization and culture?
According to Ferguson (2017), feminist theory has changed over time, but a few themes
are consistent. Specifically, feminist theory identifies the power structure in organizational
hierarchies and, subsequently, attempts to gain equality for all, not just women (Ferguson, 2017).
According to feminist theory, gender roles produce inequity in women’s power and reinforce a
hierarchy of male hegemony (Ferguson, 2017). Feminist theory points out that power in
hierarchy relations creates cultures of inequity for women in the workplace (Ferguson, 2017).
According to Bell et al. (2019), feminist theory deals with political and social inequity in
organizations and society and views the world through imbalanced power distribution. Feminist
theory understands there is systematic inequality, and men are dominant in communities and
organizations (Bell et al., 2019).
Historically, because of gender norms, men are at the top of the workplace hierarchy,
hoarding power and pay while women deploy coping strategies to help remove barriers (Khilji &
Pumroy, 2018). Specifically, gender norms that are not favorable to women obtaining power
must be maneuvered by women to deal with difficult situations and stereotypes (Khilji &
30

Pumroy, 2018). Women must navigate the rules set up by men in power in the workplace
hierarchy (Ross-Smith & Huppatz, 2010). Because the men make the rules, they know how to
maneuver political obstacles to stay in power (Ross-Smith & Huppatz, 2010). Women must be
able to identify and recognize gender norms and navigate the stereotypical barriers put in place
by men in power (Ross-Smith & Huppatz, 2010).
As previously stated, this study sought to understand how men must change to shift the
definition of gender roles and power in the workplace. It is essential to comprehend learned
gender roles through the marginalized group’s lens versus the dominant voice (Khilji& Pumroy,
2018). Traditionally, the dominant male voice is the story told and the norms towards which
society bends (Khilji& Pumroy, 2018). Leveraging social cognitive theory and feminist theory,
as demonstrated in Figure 1, this study explored learned gender roles and the impact of the
environment on workplace bias in promoting women in retail to senior leadership positions.
Expressly, this study investigated a relationship between male senior leadership power to
inequitable hierarchies in the workplace.

31

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework Hypothesis

Summary
This study explored how learned gender roles impact opportunities for women in retail,
particularly men in power excluding women from top leadership roles. Social cognitive theory
suggests gender roles are learned at a young age and continue to influence and impact adult
behavior in the workplace (Starr & Zurbriggen, 2016). These gender roles establish a hierarchy
with men in top leadership roles and in power (Acker, 2009). Men support gender roles because
these roles keep them at the top of the social status hierarchy and in control, specifically
hoarding information, authority, and resources (Singh et al., 2010). Feminist theory points out
that this inequitable distribution of power and resources keeps men at the top because of a
32

hegemony culture of sameness (Ferguson, 2017). Chapter Three will outline the study’s
methodology, outlining critical research questions that allow me to research the learned gender
roles of men senior leaders in retail and any impact these gender roles have on their ability to
assess and select talent.

33

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of the study was to understand the lived experiences of c-suite men in retail
and how their perceptions influence selection bias for senior roles. While the critical
transformative paradigm centers marginalized voices, it was important to understand the thought
process of the people in power. Specifically, these leaders are the individuals and groups who
can change the hierarchy and access in their organizations and the retail industry. Because of
this, the study explored the learned gender roles of senior male leaders in retail and the
perceptions these leaders have on women’s promotions into senior positions. Men senior leaders
were studied because they have the power in retail; expressly, over 80% of CEOs at Fortune 500
retailers are male (Fortune Media, 2020). This power allows men to determine who gets
promoted and who is left behind.
The conceptual framework suggested that learned gender roles create a belief in male
leaders that masculine qualities are more desired in top leadership positions. Specifically, men
are perceived as better leaders naturally because of their perceived ability to make decisions, be
assertive, and stay logical without getting emotional. Also, men may be unaware that they hold
these beliefs and make decisions based on these unconscious triggers. This chapter describes the
research methodology, including the research questions and protocol used during the interviews.
Moreover, the chapter outlines who was interviewed and how the data were collected. Chapter
Three also discusses how the data were analyzed and how the information was held confidential
to protect the participants’ anonymity and increase the study’s credibility. Finally, this chapter
examines the ethics of the research and its limitations.

34

Methodology and Data Sources
As previously mentioned, qualitative interviews were leveraged in this study. According
to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), qualitative interviews are used when researchers are interested in
understanding the process or the meaning of the subject’s behavior. These interviews gather data
from the interviewees’ experiences, probing for a more profound understanding to look for
trends and themes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, according to Creswell and Creswell
(2018), interviews are used when behavior cannot be observed and the participant experience can
be discovered through questions. I used qualitative interviews to understand participants’
perceptions and experiences, specifically to gather data from men’s experiences and beliefs.
Additionally, I used a semi-structured approach in the interviews to allow space to probe
differently based on the participants’ individual responses. These data increased my
understanding of what senior male leaders in retail believe and how these beliefs aid in their
decision making for female advancement opportunities.
It is important to note that the paradigm or lens through which I understand the world,
specifically this study, is the critical transformative paradigm. According to Hinga (2019), the
critical transformative paradigm is based on who has power and which audience is marginalized.
Additionally, the critical transformative paradigm connects beliefs and power to the social
construct and looks at how society impacts individuals (Hinga, 2019). Specifically, power is
embedded in society’s structure and affects individual behavior, both the powerful and the
marginalized (Hinga, 2019). Table 1 indicates the four research questions and the qualitative
interview method used during the study.

35

Table 1
Research Questions and Data Sources
Research
questions
Questions Method
RQ1 How do men describe leadership? Qualitative interview
RQ2 What competencies do men perceive as
necessary for success in senior leadership
roles?
Qualitative interview
RQ3 What stages in men’s lives, if any at all, do
they learn about inclusion?
Qualitative interview
RQ4 What process and criteria do men use to select
candidates for senior leadership roles?
Qualitative interview

Qualitative Interviews: The Specifics
I leveraged eight qualitative interviews to gather data in this study. I reached out to 12
participants leveraging my network, and eight agreed to participate. Initially, I sent emails to 12
current or previous retail leaders in my network requesting access to male senior leaders in their
network. I received names, email addresses, or Linked In connections from my network. These
connections were made once participants indicated they were interested in participating in the
study. Importantly, my network included three men and nine women vice presidents and c-suite
leaders currently or previously in retail. Notably, the purposeful, qualitative interviews in this
study were mainly obtained through female leaders. Interestingly, my female network responded
quickly. While I requested participants from both men and women, interestingly, I only received
connections from women. The men, while supportive, did not provide interview participants. I
36

recognize that my network overwhelmingly consists of inclusive leaders, specifically people who
have equity goals for themselves and their company. These networks look for opportunities to
highlight and lift people to include all voices when building culture, making decisions, and hiring
leaders. Specifically, the male participants associated with my network already show a track
record of mentoring, leading, or supporting my women’s network. Because of this, the data may
show a more favorable view of retail in gender equity.
Potential participants were contacted via email or Linked In messaging to request their
participation after permission was given from my network of professional women retail leaders.
In the participation request, I included the purpose of the study, the criteria to participate, the
method for executing and recording the interviews, the goal to schedule the interviews, and the
fact that I would share the results with any participant interested in the study. Once a leader
indicated they were interested in participating, I sent an invite, a consent form with directions
that I needed the signed form back prior to beginning the interview, and the Zoom link to join the
meeting. If I had not received the consent form back within 48 hours of the interview starting, I
sent a reminder message stating any questions could be addressed prior to the interview and that
I would need to receive the signed consent prior to starting the interview.
Seven of eight interviews were scheduled for 45 to 60 minutes, with most interviews
lasting between the scheduled time. One interview lasted an hour and 11 minutes, and another
interviewee consented to a 30-minute interview. Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, no
interviews were conducted in person. For the safety and health of all participants, I leveraged the
video communication platform Zoom to record and transcribe the discussions. One participant
did not consent to visual and audio recording. In that instance, I used detailed interview notes
and reflective memos in the analysis of the data. Except for the participant who refused
37

recording, once the interview was completed, I downloaded the Zoom transcription and saved it
in Word under a pseudonym. Approximately 2 to 3 hours were spent reviewing and correcting
each transcription for accuracy. For the participant who refused recording, I took detailed notes
during the interview and took reflective notes right after the interaction. I saved the data with a
secure password- locked file and laptop. Additionally, I stored the data in a locked file cabinet,
removing any identifying marker to safeguard confidentiality. I deleted the interviews from the
Zoom platform after the analysis of the data was complete.
Participants
According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), researchers leverage qualitative methods to
understand a problem from a social or human perspective, collecting data through observations,
interviews, and artifacts. The qualitative interview approach requires the sample to be small and
purposeful (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This purposeful sampling is a nonprobability approach,
fulfilling specific characteristics to be studied (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). According to
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), purposeful sampling is selecting subjects with particular features
with the goal of learning and gaining insight into the problem of practice. The participants in this
study were male retail leaders, five chief operating officers, one chief human resource officer,
and two chiefs of stores. One participant identified as a person of color, and all had years of
experience in retail. Creswell and Creswell (2018) defined the phenomenological approach as
typically involving interviews and examining the participants’ experiences for common themes.
Precisely, this study aligned with the phenomenological approach because the goal was to
understand men’s backgrounds and how they select individuals for senior leadership.
As previously noted, one leader was available for 30 minutes instead of the requested 45
minutes. Because of this, I was limited in the probes and leveraged this interview to understand
38

possible shared experiences with other leaders. Another leader consented to the discussion but
not to the recording. For this participant, I relied on detailed notes and my reflective memos to
communicate his experience. The participants were male senior leaders in American retail, as
defined in the problem paragraph. The goal for the sample was to interview eight to 10 c-suite
male retail leaders. I interviewed eight male c-suite participants in retail. The data represent that
an inclusive selection process has to be intentionally set by the leader. This intention was
influenced by what the respondents learned in youth and the workplace. Specifically, the
respondents demonstrated learning inclusive behavior and applying it to culture and leadership.
The respondents demonstrated an understanding of the importance of inclusion, but there were
indications of lingering gender role beliefs that could be delaying progress.
Research Questions and Protocol
As previously mentioned, qualitative interviews were conducted to study the perceived
problem of senior male leaders in retail and the role of learned gender roles in women’s
advancement. Table 2 shows the questions and probes, which connected to the conceptual
framework and to social cognitive and feminist theory, used to investigate gender norms,
leadership, and the process used to select and promote top talent. The interview protocol
explored each research question and probed thoroughly to understand the subject’s perspective
and experience. The first research question (RQ1) asked, “How do men describe leadership?”
Research Question 2 (RQ2) asked, “What competencies do men perceive as necessary for
success in senior leadership roles?” This section investigated what the subject learned was good
leadership and the qualities needed to be a leader. These research questions were designed to
understand the subject’s perception of senior leadership through competencies and the qualities
they value in a top leader. Additionally, these questions explored the respondents’ leadership
39

beliefs and expectations, specifically what they expected from leaders at the director level or
higher in their organization. This section scrutinized the definition of good leadership and what
these c-suite leaders looked for when promoting people into senior leadership roles. Furthermore,
these protocol questions explored the types of managers the participants decided to spend time
developing, ultimately giving access to their network, information, and including mentees in
critical leadership discussions.

40

Table 2
Research Questions and Interview Protocol
Research question Protocol questions
RQ1: How do men describe leadership?

1. Tell me about your career path and how
you ascended to your current position.
(Did you always see yourself in a
leadership role?)
2. How do you define leadership?
3. What has made you successful in
leadership?

RQ2: What competencies do men perceive as
necessary for success in senior leadership roles?

4. Describe two talented director-level
leaders in your organization.
5. What do these talented leaders need to do
to be promoted to senior leadership?
6. Who, if anyone, are you mentoring in your
organization? Describe the qualities they
have.

RQ3: What stages in men’s lives, if any at all, do
they learn the most about inclusion?
7. How do you define inclusion? When did
you learn about inclusion?
8. How did you identify gaps in equity and
what did you do to drive change?
9. Talk to me about your organization and
the male and female mix at different levels
of leadership. (What percent of senior
leaders in your organization are men vs.
women? Is there a gap in overall?)
RQ4: What process and criteria do men use to
select candidates for senior leadership roles?

10. What behaviors and competencies are
valued in your company? How do you
know?
11. Who is involved in the selection process
for leadership promotions to top executive
levels? (What percent does your decision
count?)
12. What process, if any, is used in talent
promotions to senior leadership?
(Performance reviews? Previous boss?
Social interactions? Performance Results?
Team input? Previous involvement with
the individual? Company culture?)

41

Research Question 3 (RQ3) asked, “What stages in men’s lives, if any at all, do they
learn the most about inclusion?” The interview questions pertaining to RQ3 were structured to
understand if the participants demonstrated knowledge of inclusion in their youth, organizations,
and throughout their career. This section explored the current or previous organization where the
men held senior-level leadership positions, specifically, investigating the female and male mix at
different levels of leadership. Furthermore, the questions were structured to understand if men
identified learning events in their careers that connected inclusion and leadership. Finally,
Research Question 4 (RQ4) asked, “What process and criteria do men use to select candidates for
senior leadership roles?” This question allowed for discovering the process the company used to
select and promote top talent. The final block for RQ4 was structured to investigate the
organization’s process and culture to assess and select candidates for senior leadership roles.
This process included understanding any tools, results, or networks leveraged to make the
decision. To close the interview, I asked subjects if there is anything else I should be asking
them. This question allowed the interviewees to reflect on their answers and add anything
relevant to the study.
Prior to the data collection, I applied and followed the institutional review board (IRB)
process. The data collection did not begin until IRB gave final approval. The interviews started
with reviewing the purpose of the study, the consent form, and getting a verbal
acknowledgement that there were no questions or concerns prior to starting the recording. I also
reminded the participants that the study was confidential and no data would be connected to
them or their companies. Additionally, I reminded each participant that they could decline to
answer any question and could stop the interview at any time. The goal during the introductory
session was to understand the leaders’ career paths, current or previous c-suite leadership roles,
42

and if they perceived they could ascend to the leadership position they held. This section of
questions kicked off the data collection and allowed me, as the researcher, to build trust and
rapport with the subject. I leveraged the interview probes to guide the interview while exploring
topics and statements mentioned by the interviewee.
Credibility and Data Analysis
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), all research should ensure credibility,
accuracy, and an ethical approach to the study. From a credibility perspective, I leveraged
multiple tools to provide accuracy of the interview findings. According to Lincoln and Guba
(1985), credibility is created through specific sample selection, confidential data collection, and
interpreting the data correctly. I used purposeful sample selection, confidential coding, and data
triangulation to support the study and ensure transferable data, dependable methods, and
confirmable results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To prepare for the study, I leveraged peer doctoral
candidates from the University of Southern California and a sample of two c-suite male leaders
to review and practice the interview protocol. I conducted practice interviews with two subjects
to ensure clarity of questions and credibility, meaning the questions are accurate to what I
wanted to study and are plausible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I selected the two practice subjects
based on the similarities to the industry and levels of leadership. Specifically, banking and
hospitals with a majority female staff were included in the practice samples. Based on my
research, both industries demonstrated a male majority at higher-level leadership positions and a
female majority in lower-level leadership positions. I also practiced using the Zoom platform to
ensure the ability to transcribe and uphold confidentiality.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), triangulation is a way to validate the data’s
convergence through multiple sources, methods, investigators, and theories. I used various
43

sources and investigators to triangulate the data in this study. Additionally, I leveraged two
doctoral candidate peers to triangulate and minimize possible bias because of my positionality.
These peers are in different industries and were leveraged to validate the data and identify
researcher bias in the interviews and the analysis. One peer identified with a different paradigm
than critical transformative. This specific peer was a White male in technology. These peers read
multiple interviews to identify themes, codes, and bias in the process. I also leveraged reflective
notes to identify researcher bias in data interpretation. As previously mentioned, confidentiality
was essential to maximize trustworthiness for the reader and the participants. To further uphold
anonymity, pseudonyms were used to protect the names of the interview participants.
Additionally, the data were coded then analyzed using a code book. I coded the data using the
transcripts of the participants and identified themes and codes in Word. The codebook was
revised as new or different codes were identified. The final code book indicated the definition of
the code, the number of instances a parent or child code appeared in the data, and who mentioned
the theme.
Ethical Approach
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) pointed out that the IRB review ensures proper process and
protocols are followed. These protocols provide ethical standards, confidentiality, and protection
of human subjects. Furthermore, according to Glesne (2011), participants should understand they
can stop participating in the study at any time with no consequences to quitting. As previously
mentioned, I obtained a signed form indicating the participants consented to their involvement
and understanding of the process. Due to the amount of data, I used Word to code the
information. Coding the data by hand allowed for greater intimacy and knowledge for data and
quotes to leverage in the findings. I ensured confidentiality by using pseudonyms and password-
44

locked documents and laptop. It was vital to identify possible power dynamics in the relationship
between me as the researcher and the subjects participating in the study. Specifically, I
previously held a position as a vice president in retail and leveraged my network to identify the
interview subjects. To ensure I protected the subjects, I did not validate whom I interviewed
from my network’s list of potential participants. Additionally, I did not speak to my network
about what was said in the interviews. Staying focused on protecting the participants reduced the
risk of breaching confidentiality and reputation damage. This was vital as, in this relationship,
the higher-level leader had power, but I also had control as I was the trusted researcher.
During the interviews, I reinforced my position as a researcher by specifically reviewing
the choice interviewees had to stop participating in the study at any time. Additionally, I focused
on open communication and built trust by underscoring that I understood the importance of
confidentiality. While slight, there was a risk of influence or coercion, meaning the participants
may have felt pressure to participate. I managed this risk by asking the potential interviewees
only twice. I assumed that if there was no response to my message, they were not interested in
participation. I also reminded the leaders three times that the study was voluntary: once in the
initial email asking for them to participate, again when I sent the invite and consent form, and
finally before starting the interview. To identify where the participants felt the need to reflect
perfect behavior versus how they actually thought, I asked behavior-based questions, specifically
asking them to reflect on their exact experience and to give examples of what they were saying.
One example is asking them to tell me about a high-potential leader in their company. I asked the
participants to think of a specific person and describe what they do well and what feedback to
improve their leadership. This approach allowed the participants to stay in actual behavior versus
speaking hypothetically. One additional note is that subjects were not paid for their participation.
45

Underlying Ethics
Identifying my positionality in this study, I previously was a vice president in retail and
have a bias that could have impacted how I reflected on the research. Specifically, I have
previous experience that could have caused me to translate, fill in the meaning of unclear
statements, and not explore an answer, as I was at risk of assuming I knew what the participants
felt or meant. It was essential to create reflective notes for each section of the study. Identifying
underlying bias was vital to ensuring credibility and transferability. Notably, this study took the
critical transformative perspective of females as the marginalized group (Hinga, 2019).
Consequently, male senior leaders and their organizations could have been harmed in this study
if the organization discovered the leader used homogeneous criteria in selection, creating an
inequitable environment for women. Additionally, harm could have come to organizations if it
had been uncovered in the study that they have a biased process or refused to implement a
strategy to ensure unbiased selection. I disseminated results through a dissertation for the
University of Southern California.

46

Chapter Four: The Findings
The findings for the study indicate that building an inclusive organizational culture and
creating a structured selection process is vital to women’s advancement in the workplace.
Respondents who had a structured selection process and built an inclusive culture impacted
gender bias in their organization and increased women’s representation in senior leadership.
Specifically, multiple participants demonstrated the importance of creating a process for
development, assessment, and selection of talent for promotion. Additionally, the data show the
importance of building an inclusive culture through awareness, action, and accountability to
change female representation through improved pipeline and recruitment. Moreover, there were
influences that helped or hindered the participants’ creation of an inclusive culture. These
findings included learned values, definitions of leadership, and lingering gender role
expectations.
The results supported some assertions in previous chapters about learned gender roles and
homogeneous cultures. These concepts connected to exclusion persist and may influence senior
leaders’ behavior in the selection and advancement of women. Additionally, data also showed
shifts and evolution in the definition of leadership and what is valued in organizations today.
Specifically, characteristics formally considered feminine and less valuable in leadership are
included in the description of good leadership, according to the study participants. Notably, even
with this evolution in defining leadership, stereotypical expectations of how women should
behave were evident in the data, specifically in executive women’s roles as mothers and in
women acting more confidently to fit into senior leadership roles.
I interviewed eight male c-suite participants from American retail. The interviews
focused on senior male leaders in retail because they hold power. Specifically, men represent
47

over 80% of the retail Fortune 500 chief executive officers (Fortune Media, 2020). As mentioned
in Chapter Three, the participants were all c-suite leaders and were seven White respondents and
one person of color. Additionally, two spent their childhoods outside of the United States, and all
mentioned hard work or integrity as part of their success. I gave the leaders pseudonyms to
uphold confidentiality and anonymity. Table 3 reflects the participants’ pseudonyms, race,
position, and professional background.

Table 3
Participant Demographics
Pseudonyms Race Position Professional background
Mark White Chief stores officer/president Retail
Tyler White Chief human resource officer Education, tech, retail
Timothy White Chief executive officer Retail
Ryan Person of Color Chief executive officer Retail
James White Chief executive officer Retail
Frank White Chief stores officer/president Retail
William White Chief executive officer Consulting, retail
Samuel White Chief executive officer Retail

48

The Themes and Research Questions
I conducted this research to explore male senior leaders’ perspective on women’s
advancement in the workplace. The study specifically investigated the lived experiences of c-
suite men in retail and how their perceptions influence selection bias for senior roles. Because
men hold the power positions in retail, the findings and recommendations are geared towards
what men must do to identify gender inequity and make changes. As noted in Chapter Two,
Acker (2006) pointed out that the marginalized group rarely can change the culture and improve
gender inequity, meaning men must be part of the change. Because of this, Chapters Four and
Five focus on what is required of men to influence organizational culture and change women’s
representation and access to power.
Multiple themes appeared in the research linked to women’s advancement in the
workplace. The major trends involved creating a culture and process to enact inclusion in
selection and advancement, learning that happens in the home and workplace, and expectations
of leadership today. Creating a culture and process for inclusion addresses RQ4. Specifically,
respondents reflected on a culture of awareness, action, and accountability to change exclusive
cultures and increase access for women. The data reflected that change in organizations
happened when leadership set an inclusive culture that included awareness, action, and
accountability to improve equity in the process. Additionally, a specific selection process was
leveraged to reduce bias and improve fairness. The results suggest that corporate culture is set at
the top and reinforced through concrete actions and processes that increase advancement
opportunities for women. Notably, while creating an inclusive culture and structured process
improved women’s representation, additional concepts influenced the stagnation of inequity.
Specifically, lingering stereotypes that create gender expectations for women in executive
49

positions continue to hinder women’s advancement. Setting the appropriate culture was
connected to the literature review question of what motivates men to change. The results showed
the participants were motivated to change based on their learnings in their youth and in their
careers.
Learning throughout childhood and the workplace answered RQ3. Participants learned
from their childhood and work experiences and applied these lessons to driving an inclusive
culture. Respondents reported specific experiences that taught them the value of inclusion, the
business impact, and their role in changing organizations. These learnings influenced their
motivation to drive an inclusive culture and improve female representation. Participants spoke to
learning vital concepts of family and values in their youth that they applied to adulthood.
Additionally, respondents reflected on specific experiences in the workplace that reinforced these
values. Specifically, respondents spoke to learning hard work, integrity, and values from their
childhood, which were reinforced in the workplace. These learnings motivated the participants to
change and were influenced by the importance of diversity to business profitability, customer
satisfaction, and employee engagement.
Another theme showed the respondents’ definition of leadership is evolving, but some
stereotypes continue to be resilient. These findings answered RQ1 and RQ2, specifically
participants’ leadership definition and competences valued in potential leaders. Notably, the
respondents appreciated qualities traditionally considered feminine as necessary to leadership,
specifically compassion, empathy, and team building. The participants valued a focus on team
and results, which differed from previous research. Conversely, the data reflected underlying
gender norms that persisted in the respondents’ language and behavior, specifically, grammar
50

used to describe female leaders, expectations of how women should behave, and the value placed
on women both in the workplace and in the home.
Culture and Process
Building an inclusive culture and structured selection process was vital to improving
women’s advancement and representation. The findings demonstrate the participants set and
reinforced the organizational culture, specifically identifying where individuals were following
the process, implementing change, or had not bought into transformation. Interviewees noted that
culture and process influenced talent decisions. Notably, respondents indicated the importance of
the company culture and a data-driven process and identified the risk of not following the system
in selecting talent. The line of inquiry about the selection process expanded the scope of the
question and exposed the risk of bias in a broken hiring process.
James and William gave examples of when stress and bias were added to the process. In
these examples, there was a larger risk of excluding diversity or making a poor talent decision.
William stated, “the testing supported” declining the candidate, but “the position had been open
over a year.” Going against the stated process ended with a devastating result, the person failing,
and the position coming open again. James reflected on candidates who were not selected based
on a flaw in the process of allowing individual values in talent assessment. James remembered a
talented female leader who was turned down based on her “high-pitched voice.” Both leaders
expanded on these concerns and identified the stressor in the process. Additionally, interviewees
explored the male and female mix in the company and identified gaps in inclusion. Respondents’
reflections exposed the success or failure of female selection and representation in their
organizations.

51

Inclusive Organizational Culture
Participants indicated that leadership should set up an inclusive organizational culture to
influence norms and buy into equity. All respondents spoke to the importance of the most senior
leaders developing the culture. Seven leaders identified culture as critical to driving equitable
representation in their organizations. Samuel underscored the importance of organizational
culture for inclusion and gender equity. He spoke about his experience when he began his CEO
position: “It was a former command and control type culture, and literally orders were being
passed down.” He went on to say, “what happened as a result of that is people quit making
decisions.” He mentioned,
It was obvious to me after sitting around looking, it’s a pretty talented group, and we
were only getting a fraction, literally a fraction, of the knowledge around this table, and
so for me, the key to unlocking business was getting a reset of the culture but more
importantly, unlocking the talent.
Specifically, the new culture supported a purpose-driven talent pool, which supported women’s
inclusion in senior leadership. Samuel referred to purpose-driven as understanding values and
what matters to people and ensuring they live and fulfill these values at work. When asked if
leadership is changing to be more inclusive, Samuel mentioned the two things driving companies
right now: “One of those is what you described there, so there is a bit of a leadership mandate” to
change gender representation and inclusion. The second thing that companies are focused on is
Most companies are embracing some level of purpose-driven cultures as well, and that’s
the ESG portion of the world, and a lot of individual companies are saying, hey
environmentally, socially, or governance wise, these are things that are painful to us, and
so, when you have a purpose-driven culture, then you actually start to kind of create a
52

little bit of higher-level meaning for the employee. I mean, when you really get right
down to it, your people do their best work when they can maximize and really just create
worthwhile work, if you will, and make a meaningful contribution, and part of that has to
be clearly linked with things that are going on in the community.
William also spoke to the importance of senior leadership setting a culture of diversity and
inclusion. He said top leadership must set the organizational culture. As CEO, William
understands that representation is essential. He sets the company culture based on what matters
to “his customers, associates, and his kid’s opinion,” not the voice of the small minority that does
not buy into equity. Timothy also pointed out that the CEO should set the culture that influences
talent decisions then the right talent will advocate for an inclusive culture.
It’s a vastly different team today than it was, and it didn’t take long to get there. It
performs at a much higher level, and I think it’s naturally easier because if you and I were
having this discussion, I don’t have to, I mean of course, I’m going to try to sell you on
why I think it would be great for us to work together, but it’s not the gospel according to
me. At this point in time, I mean, I can turn you loose to multiple other people on the
team. We’re all going to come at it from a little bit different place.
Timothy went on to identify the “baggage a couple of years ago” that he walked into as CEO and
was focused on changing immediately. The changes he made in inclusive leadership shifted the
talent search from the company searching to people wanting to be a part of the team. Timothy
said, “I think it’s funny now that we’re in that spot. It’s different to have people that are seeking
out; hey, I want to come be a part of the team.”
While the participants supported the concept that the c-suite sets the culture, two leaders
adamantly underscored the importance of the vice president levels reinforcing gender and
53

inclusion to uphold the culture. Specifically, Tyler indicated some leaders reinforce and maintain
situations they experienced in their career, meaning the expectation to relocate or work long
hours led to the belief that others needed to do the same to be viewed as qualified. The
conviction of rigid hours and putting work first does not leave space for women, who tend to be
the caretakers at home (Hodges & Park, 2013). Tyler aligned with previous research, aligning
flexibility being essential to include women in advancement opportunities (Hodges & Park,
2013). Tyler mentioned women who have less flexibility to relocate and work overtime also do a
great job and have potential. Tyler stood firm that these women should be considered in the
selection process, and it should not be a ‘badge of honor” to repeatedly relocate and make work a
priority over family. Tyler gave a specific example of how gender bias was embedded in the
culture under the disguise of relocation:
Here’s an example. You have a district leader that has 12 stores in LA, and the store
opening happens in North Malibu, and they go to a little chart, and they see [name], who
is a woman, is in the top right of the nine-box, meaning she’s exceptional with
competencies. She’s exceptional with goals. She’s been identified. She’s ready to go. I
call her, and I say, hey, I have an opening for you in North Malibu, and she says, “holy
smokes, I live in Venice. I’ve got kids at home, and I’ve got to pick them up at daycare
by six every day. I just can’t do that.” They get knocked off the list, never to be talked to
again because they turned down the promotion, and he [district manager] promotes the
next male he can find that’s okay driving the hour. Here’s the problem with that: there’s
probably some woman sitting in LA that lives in Malibu that would totally take that
opportunity, and her opportunity would be closer for the next person. We were playing
checkers. We were not playing chess, and that was built in our culture, and so what we
54

decided to do was we decided to open up the realm saying, look, if you’re a leader of a
store, maybe you don’t have to be here every Saturday and Sunday. Maybe you can have
the assistant, and so we created some flexibility.
Participants indicated that when direct reports challenge a diverse organizational culture, changes
become more complicated. Respondents mentioned specifically that it can be impossible to drive
change when vice president levels are not bought into the culture. Tyler identified the vice
president level as a challenge in holding back culture changes:
It’s not the senior team. It’s the VP team saying, “Okay wait a second. Time out. I
thought if I were a man, I put in 10 years at this company, I thought that I got promoted
and now you’ve got a young woman.” Okay, she’s been here 10 years, but she’s a
woman, and she’s in. What’s going to happen when we promote a woman?
Tyler said it was necessary to identify the gaps in leadership buy-in and move quickly to
accountability. He mentioned, “by performance-managing a couple of really visible people that
get it wrong and that you’ve talked to, who don’t want to move, the people in the middle go holy
crap, I want to move.” Tyler said that to move the culture, you must send a signal that there are
consequences to not embracing inclusion. This movement Tyler referred to is in ideology,
language, and action to support an inclusive culture and increase women’s advancement. Samuel
said, “An old boss of mine used the term intellectual insubordination. His point was, basically,
your number one job is to sit around the table, find out who at the table is shaking their heads
yes, but in their heart [shakes his head no].” These participants point out discovering and
addressing the gaps in culture and leadership is essential to progress with gender equity in the
workplace.

55

Men’s Motivation and Change
To build an inclusive culture and decrease gender bias in the selection process, men who
hold the power must want to change. One question asked in Chapter Two regarded men’s
motivation to change. Many scholars pointed out that men benefit from the current power
dynamics in the workplace. Kelan (2017) said men hoard leadership positions to keep power and
privileges. Similarly, van den Brink and Benschop (2012) indicated that White male leaders are
part of the exclusive ingroup, leaving women out of the inner circle and out of power. The
findings from this study indicate there are multiple reasons for men to change. These reasons
include personal values, business, alignment to customers, and current and future employees’
expectations of inclusion. This section explores the findings on why men are motivated to
change and how they have changed their organizational culture.
Motivation and Action
According to DiTomaso et al. (2007), for gender equity to happen, men must be willing
to share power, financial benefits, and advancement opportunities. Therefore, it is essential for
the people in power, men, to change gender inequity (Acker, 2006). The participants identified
multiple reasons to pursue women’s representation and equity. These leaders specified personal
and family values as reasons fairness in gender is essential. Seven leaders indicated that diversity
was crucial to the organization and to them personally. According to James, inclusion and equity
are essential to him and the team. He said, “It’s not an option not to develop your team in a more
diverse way. It’s a requirement, and it’s important to me, and it’s important to our team.”
Similarly, William also shared that he creates policies based on equity because “it matters to the
associates, customers, and my kids.” William was pointing out that his children’s opinions along
with the customers and associates outweighed external voices not bought into equity. He gave an
56

example that when deciding the company’s stance on voting rights, this was not political; it was
ethical. Tyler mentioned the conflict internally when his beliefs do not connect to his workplace:
“It’s just the right thing to do,” meaning that it is important for his values to connect with the
organizational actions.
Participants indicated it is vital to align the company with the reflection of the community
and the total organization. Timothy identified that when he first became CEO of his current
company, female representation was his largest diversity gap. He said, “I walked in the doors, a
room full of White guys that had been there a long time and, well, are not really reflective of
who we are.” Leaders also indicated that, today, an inclusive culture is not optional. William said
it is the expectation of current and future employees. He said, “The younger generations demand
change” and will not accept an exclusive culture. Respondents indicated this expectation of
equity impacts the company’s ability to attract talent, keep customers, and maintain financial
stability. While values may be part of pushing for gender equity, as Acker (2006) stated, for men
to give up power, there usually needs to be a threat of cost or a financial impact. Samuel’s view
aligned with Acker’s and cited business reasons as essential to driving equity. Samuel shared an
experience of a board he is on and the profound shift in profitability for the company once they
aligned their workforce with the community. Samuel said, “As we transformed, the profitability
of the company has gone up and the stock prices have gone up. There is something to being local
and relevant and important, and that is a winning formula for a lot of retail companies.” It was
evident in the data, as men’s motivation to change was the catalyst to progress and
transformation in the organizations.

57

Implementing Change
The participants brought together multiple elements to implement change in culture,
representation, and advancement. As previously mentioned, the findings demonstrated that an
organizational culture of inclusion needs to be set by leadership to get all levels brought into
diversity and inclusion. Additionally, the data represents that it is vital to have assessment and
selection tools to ensure an equitable process and follow the procedures. Finally, to drive a fair
talent culture, participants indicated one must create awareness, act, and ensure accountability.
These three levers created change in several of the participants’ organizations. The research
showed the three participants who experienced a work assignment in which they were the
minority changed female and diversity gaps in their workplace the fastest. Specifically, these
respondents were the most action-oriented about gender equity and diversity in the workplace
and implemented initiatives to change the selection and advancement of women. These
participants also identified high potential women leaders and executed specific actions to help
these women advance in the organization.
Create an Assessment Process and Do It
Respondents argued that there must be a talent process, and the process must be followed.
They advocated that companies should create intentional recruitment, selection, and interview
practices, or there may be a risk of bias in advancement opportunities. Many scholars have
pointed out that a transparent development, performance management, and interview procedure
is essential to remove bias from the selection process. According to Flabbi et al. (2016), bias in
the selection process leads to fewer promotion opportunities for women in the workplace.
Multiple participants aligned with previous research and identified bias in selection when
individual beliefs were used in rating and decisions. Specifically, an unfair talent method
58

includes features such as women getting asked about family responsibilities, a lack of
transparency of the process, and the use of gender stereotypes such as women not being assertive
(van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). Seven participants had a specific process they followed in
selecting talent. The respondents who upheld a selection process demonstrated an understanding
that having a strategy in partnership with HR was vital. These leaders spoke about defining core
roles, values, testing, interviewing, performance results, and event sourcing. Samuel pointed out
that he outlines specific criteria required to succeed before starting the selection process. He said,
First thing that I did is I sat down and organized the org chart in the manner that I thought
was right to lead the company, and then from that, I started listing all the key mandates of
that functionality. I said to myself, ‘What are the three or four things? What does success
look like at this job?’ The other part I put together is a list of company values. They have
to get five pluses in all of our company values, and then I went deeper into it and used
leadership behaviors [and] coupled that with both quality interview questions as well as
external assessment.
Samuel set expectations and aligned the team prior to interviews. He said communicating
specific criteria prior to the selection process reduced bias and the risk of failure. When asked
when the process failed, Samuel said, “Every single time it comes back to one thing, and that is
where I didn’t get clear alignment between job expectations and the job.” James also indicated
his company has a specific interview process. He said,
We have leadership competencies, and we would evaluate people based on how they
communicate, how they build relationships, how they solve problems, very similar to the
core nine or 10 leadership competencies that a lot of companies use. We used Hogan [a
leadership assessment tool]. That’s what I use here, Hogan testing, to just understand
59

what are people’s strengths, what is their performance, and their leadership profile. Just
so we use some science as opposed to “we like them.” There was a formal assessment,
but then a lot of it was just the results. They have to have good numbers, do they have a
good engagement survey, do they have a track record of promoting talent, developing
talent, so we looked at the results, the team experience, and then the package. I don’t
want to say testing, but, you know, the interviews and how well they do on their
cognitive tasks and their personality indicators.
Mark mentioned, “At the regional vice president level, we put them through eight to nine
interviews, put them through a Korn Ferry assessment, we review their performance in their
talent management, or their people scores and leadership competencies.” He went on to connect
this process to development plans for leaders, saying, “then we have discussions, make
decisions, and we build leadership development plans around that.”
Differently, Frank admitted a transparent process that works is something that is a gap for
his organization: “We always struggle with this, you know this executive group that we have,
and the reality is it’s not so much because we don’t have diversity. We just have nobody.” He
went on to say,
Making it up to a certain level of senior management, they don’t cross the threshold of
the valley to get to the senior leadership side of it, whether it’s a male, female, you know,
race, gender. We’ve had very, very, very little success in having anyone go though, and
this is my challenge back to HR and has been for the last couple of years. The problem,
we have no problem acquiring, and somehow, we’re falling short. People either leave
because they get frustrated, we’re not moving fast enough, or we’re not recruiting
properly.
60

Frank demonstrated he understood there was a gap in having a process for overall talent success,
not just women. Interestingly, Frank indicated that he understood the importance of internal
development and retention, but there was a lack of action to identify gaps and improve results.
Frank’s experience differed from what other leaders represented as their experience resulting in
talent and advancement gaps.
Most respondents indicated they had a specific process to develop and select individuals
for senior leadership. Participants represented that having a process is vital to talent
development, but following the process is essential to the program’s success.
Five leaders indicated that when the process was not followed, there was a higher failure
rate for individuals. William told the experience of a talented candidate who did not match the
company culture and for whom testing indicated she was not a fit. Also, her interviewers did not
sign off on the candidate. However, the organization moved forward with the candidate due to
the length of time the position had been open. The candidate left the position within a year,
impacting the team and the business. William said, “Testing supported the leader would not be
successful, and within a year it was a disaster.” James also spoke to a solid process in his
previous company that failed when it was not followed. He reflected on the experiences of
people who attained positions and who failed and others who did not get through the process.
Bias occurred when his peers inserted additional requirements that were not part of the process.
He used an example of a talented woman whom he described as having great engagement and
results. She did not get a promotion because of bias in the interview process. Specifically,
interviewers assessed this leader on qualities not important to success in the role, showing bias of
what was important to them as leaders, not what was important in the process. James mentioned,
61

She was really smart, great with people, and very driven, and you know people thought
she’s flighty. I remember people saying she looks like she’s 18 and things. I was like,
wait a second, like that does not feel…So, she left. She left the company, and she went to,
I think it was [company name]. You know, we lost a great talent because we allowed
some of those actors to influence us when I thought they were not really BFOQs [bona
fide occupational qualifications] at all. I thought they were more just biases, frankly.
James’ colleagues’ ratings included her “high-pitched voice” and the perception that “she
seemed like a cheerleader.” As a result, the woman left the organization and is currently a
successful vice president in another retailer. The process in this instance was biased, but it
appeared the culture was also imperfect. Individuals feeling comfortable in using labels and
stereotypes in their language and assessments indicates a company culture that allows this toxic
masculinity (Berdahl et al., 2018). Setting the culture and enforcing consequences for bad
behavior is vital to creating an inclusive culture (Berdahl et al., 2018). Interestingly, the
respondents believed there was not bias in the process when it was followed. They identified
gaps when the process was broken with individual perceptions or a lack of clarity in directions.
They did not connect bias in the process with a culture that allowed discrimination. In the
example that James gave, the company culture seemed in need of repair. Once that was done,
then the process could be the focus. The selection process for most participants included defining
what is needed and aligning values, interviews, and testing or assessments. The data indicate that
an inclusive development and selection process starts with culture. An inclusive culture and
identification of a process allow for the next steps in change.

62

Awareness, Action, and Accountability
According to de Vries (2015), alignment in speech and actions is required to change
gender representation and shift power dynamics. The participants used awareness, action, and
accountability to advocate for and advance gender equity in their organizations. Multiple
participants spoke to awareness, specifically identifying gaps, educating, and having open,
sometimes uncomfortable conversations. A large part of understanding gaps in gender and
diversity representation in the organization was knowing the numbers, specifically the differing
representation at various leadership levels and how they changed with each stage of
advancement. These leaders spoke to gaps and knew precisely how they wanted to influence and
grow the gender representation in the organization. Mark spoke about the store’s organization:
It’s going to be different…closer to 50/50, and a lot of that has to do with our cashiers we
have in the stores, which typically, will wind up being female. Then, the next level up,
the supervisors are 60/40, 60 male, 40 female. The next level is probably 70/30, and
that’s the manager level. Then, at the district manager level, it’s roughly 70/30, and
we’ve been able to grow that quite a bit. At the VP level, quite frankly, it’s 50/50, and in
fact, I do pay attention to this. Interestingly enough, you know, in many cases I can be in
meetings where I’m the only male, or it’s me and one other male, and there are six
females in the room or on a conference call. SVP is probably 60/40 male, and then EVP
level it’s at 85% male.
Mark demonstrated an awareness of gender representation and which leadership levels had gaps
in gender equity. While there is an awareness for Mark and the organization, the numbers
indicate this awareness is not moving gender equity at the senior leadership level. Awareness
63

was the first step, and the participants ensured all leaders in the company understood the gaps in
gender representation and aligned priorities to inclusion.
Notably, awareness also aided the c-suite leaders in identifying individuals who have not
bought in, where they needed to support, and next steps to action. Mark underscored that
awareness was important for both men and women in the organization. When asked what was
holding back individuals in the company from promoting qualified women, Mark said, “I think
that there’s a little bit of lack of awareness of the importance of growing our net female and
diverse leadership and not having the appropriate sense of urgency on that.” He mentioned
women do not get a pass if they are not identifying, developing, and advancing female talent.
Mark reflected on a female district manager in his company:
She’s got one, two. She’s got three female store managers out of 10 stores, and she’s
been with us for 8 years. So, how do we get our leaders to look for those opportunities,
and even if it’s our female leaders. I mean, they’re obviously not immune to that, right?
The data indicate awareness of the gaps in representation and having transparent conversations
with hiring managers is a vital part to changing an exclusive culture.
The second step in the cultural transition was setting an intentional action plan. Six of the
participants discussed various steps of action, from sourcing and recruiting to scorecards
measuring diversity and inclusion categories. Multiple leaders said the most critical action to
take is driving a diverse pipeline and selection pool. The participants mentioned the focus needs
to be on hiring the right person, not the person who fills the gender or diversity category.
Similarly, these leaders underscored that the values and competencies needed to be successful
must be present for any candidate to be effective. Samuel leveraged a multi-layered approach to
driving change. He indicated he first identifies the competencies necessary in the role; then, he
64

challenged his team to build a diverse talent pool to interview. Samuel mentioned he first
determines what is needed to fill a position, then he requires the list of eligible candidates to be
diverse:
Once we understand that, we said, okay, now what we really need to do is to think about
balancing this with an African American female with these skill sets, and then we have a
very specific list of things to go out and take a look. I’m really kind of proud to say that
we found [African American female board member] who’s the former [chief officer of a
company] for many years. Wonderful, marvelous addition to the board, and we’re still
searching. Actually, I got a really impressive list for the next candidate, but the point here
is that beyond just saying, hey, we want a whatever person on the board, we’re really
trying to actually make sure that this individual coming aboard contributes in a
meaningful way to this business and actually helps advance whatever they should.
Tyler agreed. He said if the slate is diverse and the leader always selects White people, he knows
where he has an issue:
To say I do not want to have a goal to go out and hire people of color, women, diverse,
that’s not our goal. Our goal is not to hire. I’m going to give you a harder goal. I want a
diverse slate before we pass it over to anyone to hire and then let them hire the best
candidate. Get a diverse slate, and the moment I changed that, that was big because then
everyone felt like okay, HR is going to give us a diverse slate where they can, and then
we can still pick the best candidate, and you know what’s happened? It’s unbelievable
that they’ve made the right choices, and sometimes it’s been the non-diverse person and
sometimes the diverse person.
65

Tyler indicated that if leaders receive a diverse hiring schedule and they always pick the White
candidate, then he identifies that leader as a challenge to inclusion. Tyler said,
If I can say here’s your diverse slate and pick the best person, I can go see there’s two
Caucasians it just happens that the rest are diverse, and a thought leader always picks the
Caucasian, I know where the problem now is, I know where it is.
These data indicate that giving senior leaders a diverse talent pool with an unbiased process leads
to a diverse workforce. Additionally, the data represent giving a hiring manager a qualified
diverse talent pool to select from helps identity if there is a culture gap. Specifically, if the
culture accepts the continued exclusion of female talent, either the individual has not bought into
the culture or the culture is not where the respondents believe it to be.
Notably, three leaders demonstrated a change process that included awareness, action,
and accountability. These three leaders showed a track record of changing every organization
they ran within 12 to 24 months. As stated by the leaders, these changes were almost 50%
change in women representation within 2 years. James laid out a multi-year approach starting
with awareness to include communication and empathy. James asked his leaders, “how do you
think our female managers feel when they look up and the seven bosses above them are all male
or not diverse?” James said that, next, he started hiring women who attracted other talented
women to the organization:
I’ve been asked this question a lot because it was a dramatic, dramatic difference. The
first thing I went to, [I noticed] if you were White male and over 50, you were in. And
ironically, you know over 50% of our [employees] were women. And of that group over
50% were diverse, ethnically diverse, so I did two things. I started talking about it. I
started talking about and creating some of that uncomfortable [conversation]. They just
66

never talked about it. It was taboo. And then the other thing is I just started hiring. I
started hiring women and ethnic diversity on my team, and then all of a sudden, it’s like,
wow. It’s like a miracle I hired someone who’s female, and now she’s got a whole
network of great young executive females that she’s promoting, and next thing you know,
we’re 30% gender equity on our team. And, so, just hire. Don’t just talk about it, but
when you have an opening, you have to take action to make your team different. And I’ve
always said you’ll never hire someone because they’re diverse or that they are gender,
they fill a gender [spot]. Never, ever, ever. You have to hire them because they are great.
Timothy agreed talented women have a network of talented women that can quickly change
representation. Interestingly, Timothy connected this to the idea of sameness. He said people are
comfortable when they see other people like them, including women:
It’s never a reason. If that’s the sole reason you go blow something up and rebuild it, then
you’re not likely going to end up in a better spot, and so you start with where are the gaps
today, and then, what do I do to fill them. Look, when I came here, I was fortunate, I had
a couple of open positions that I needed to fill, and they happened to be in areas, you
know, general counsel. There’s no reason in the world I couldn’t find a strong woman to
step into that role, and so that’s what I did. And, you know, it was about going out and
finding, never a check the box exercise. I mean, here are all these other traits that I want
this person to have. But in the end, the dirty little secret is that you don’t have to have,
like, this master roadmap. You just have to start the momentum rolling with the right two
or three decisions. Again, back to what we said earlier, people gravitate towards what
feels good or what the shared experience is, and so, if you find people who are of the
same mind, then they have a network. They attract other talented people, and before you
67

know it, you get the right couple of people. It was more important for me to solve for
gender issues when I got here than it was any other sort of cultural or racial inequities
because it was the biggest glaring outlier, and we’ve got a population that is about 80%
female in the company. You know, it was the largest set of underrepresented populations.
Timothy indicated that action is vital to gender inclusion and changing the culture. Timothy’s
first action was to start with bringing on a few talented women leaders. This behavior aligned
with prior research, which states that women leaders mimic other talented females (Latu et al.,
2018). According to Latu et al. (2018), women leaders follow and imitate women whom they
view as credible in their position. Timothy and James aligned with this research by hiring
women, knowing they would attract and build a network of strong female leaders in their
organizations.
Ryan also showed a track record of action in multiple c-suite positions. When he arrived
at his current company, he found one female executive, and everyone else was a White man.
Within 2 years, he had 46% women representation on his executive team. Ryan said, “Two years
later, I have three female executive vice presidents.” He agreed with a multi-step approach to
changing gender equity in the workplace: “I think awareness is part of it, so I think the first thing
is, you know, I’ve said many times, the first step to recovery is admitting you’ve got a problem.”
Ryan focused on educating the team in his awareness phase of changing culture, specifically,
teaching the team what to look at and how to interpret the information is essential:
Okay, this is a problem, that’s what awareness is. That’s sitting down with the team and
saying, let’s look at the general population of where we operate our business, and then
let’s look at the diversity from ethnicity and gender and take a look at our team. So that’s
awareness, first. Okay, so we got a problem, folks, so then step two is how do you solve
68

it so step one is let’s make sure that we open up jobs we don’t just anoint people to
promotions, we create a slate, and we make sure that the slate is diverse. Number two,
let’s make sure we identify locations
The data indicated a pattern of awareness, teaching, and attracting a diverse talent pool as vital to
begin to improve gender representation. The last part of changing gender equity that emerged in
the data is accountability. Participants aligned with Acker that accountability was the final step
to implementing change. Acker (2006) stated that typically, men must be financially impacted to
drive gender equity. According to de Vries (2015), if men drove female gender equity goals in
the same way they do other initiatives, things would change, and women’s inclusion in
advancement would be part of the culture. Multiple leaders demonstrated the impact that
accountability has in their focus on gender inclusion. In Year 2 of one of his roles, James held
the team accountable by putting diversity goals on their reviews. This underscored the
importance but also impacted individuals financially. Specifically, including diversity goals on
reviews impacted annual merit to include cash bonuses. Additionally, poor ratings on annual
reviews impacted future advancement and job stability. James indicated, “I started putting it on
people’s reviews. It’s not an option to not develop your team in a more diverse way. It’s a
requirement, and it’s important to me, and it’s important to our team.” Ryan agreed, he indicated
the last part of his three-step process:
You will be held accountable. You answer to me if you cannot find a way to properly and
effectively diversify your team, based on the fact that we have a talent pool out there that
should give us a candidate that we can choose from.
Three leaders moved results quickly, but most participants understood action creates
actual change in inclusion. Connecting experiences to learning and action was evident in the
69

data. Certain participants experienced inclusion and learned it through childhood and the
workplace. These same respondents demonstrated a value for gender equity in representation and
took measured steps to improve women’s advancement in their companies. As Tyler indicated,
he understands that diversity brings innovation to an organization: “I know diversity brings
conversation, conversation brings arguments, arguments bring discussion, discussion brings
change and change makes us better.” The data indicate a clear understanding of process,
awareness, and action to increase women’s representation. The data indicate that if a selection
process is not working, the culture could be the root cause. The research indicated that
identifying if the process or the culture is flawed is vital to progressing gender equity in the
workplace. The respondents recognized another part of the inclusive developmental process as
access to information, networks, and sponsors.
Access and Sponsors
A supportive culture of access and sponsorships is a vital part of removing bias in the
selection process (Singh et al., 2010). Men typically have access to information and sponsors to
learn how to navigate obstacles and increase a sense of belonging (Hoyt & Simon, 2011).
Additionally, sponsors offer access to information, networks, and power (Hoyt & Simon, 2011).
Multiple participants indicate they had sponsorship early in their careers. Specifically, mentors
identified these participants as potential talent and volunteered to mentor them. Previous research
suggests women historically are marginalized with less access to data, promotions, and networks
(Hoyt & Simon, 2011). The data demonstrated alignment with previous research that networks
give men access to social settings and sponsorship typically exclusive to the male ingroup (Singh
et al., 2010). Singh et al. (2010) pointed out this restriction to networks creates barriers to
information for women and upholds the power structure in the hierarchy. When talking to Ryan
70

about women executives, he said, “They don’t have the mentorship. They don’t have the
connections, you know, within the organization for someone to kind of shepherd them through
putting them in all the right jobs.” Interestingly, multiple participants agreed with the previous
research and referred to receiving voluntary sponsorship as being “lucky.” Tyler mentioned, “I
do believe that you’ve got to be ready for a lucky situation when it happens, and if you’re ready,
then it creates an opportunity, and certainly that’s the way my career has been.” James said, “I
look around like, how did I end up here, and I think it’s partly because I just had a lot of great
people around me. I worked really hard, and I moved my family.” Timothy also referenced a
time when he intended to go to law school. He described a sponsor who reached out and offered
him employment. This executive offered to pay for school and helped launch his career.
I had actually gotten to know a few executives at a [previous company] through some
odd circumstances, but they’ve taken a personal interest in me, and when I graduated, this
person said, “You know, law school costs money. We pay money.”
Conversely, Ryan, the only participant of color, mentioned that he did not have a sponsor to help
him navigate his career. He indicated the need to be more assertive and ask for what he wanted.
Ryan mentioned,
When I sit down and talk to them [peer CEOs] about their career journey, it couldn’t be
more different than mine. I mean, it was almost like, to have sponsorship, from an
internship with somebody [who] just made sure they got into the right job, make sure
they met the right people, and I didn’t have that luxury, and I don’t look back on it with
any negative feelings or hard feelings. I just took a different journey, and I wouldn’t trade
my journey for anything.
71

This additional data point demonstrates there is more nuance and dynamics to gender in the
workplace. While men hold power over women, there is an additional layer of privilege for
White men in organizations (DiTomaso et al., 2007). Previous research points out that White
men hoard power from women and people of color (DiTomaso et al., 2007). Ryan’s statements
about sponsorships support the previous research by DiTomaso et al. (2007), specifically that
White males are considered the ingroup and benefit from a long-term system of gender inequity.
Additionally, sponsorships within the male inner elite group continue to uphold power inequity
keeping senior roles male-dominated (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). The data demonstrated
respondents who received sponsors were valued as leaders at a young age. The findings suggest a
lack of sponsorship for women, indicating a possible gap in the value they bring to an
organization. Specifically, a leader’s perceived worth is reflected in access and exclusive
ingroups who may uphold the lack of balance in women’s advancement.
Learning: Home and the Workplace
The participants indicated an organizational culture of inclusion was rooted in their
values. The data represented that the respondents learned values from their youth but also in the
workplace. These values started at a young age and were reinforced through specific experiences
in the workplace and motivated the participants to implement an inclusive culture. A critical
theme in the findings was the concept of men making plans for the future based on learnings
from their youth. Additionally, results indicated the men in this study continued to experience
their environment and apply learnings in the future, specifically in their family structures.
Furthermore, the respondents experienced dynamic events in the workplace and used this
learning in the organization, impacting the culture’s power structure. These participants
demonstrated an understanding that affected their familiar plans and experiences that changed
72

the hierarchy and shifted the inequity in their organizations. The results reveal that the
participants’ childhoods impacted their family structures. In some cases, their current family
structures mimicked the traditional family structures of their youth, and in other ways, they
created a reason to change. Specifically, all the men’s families represented a traditional
American structure of a husband, wife, and children, no matter the upbringing. James said,
“Mom and dad married for 55 years now. You know, just traditional. Great relationship, younger
brother, 2 years younger actually.”
These typical American family structures symbolized that their experience in childhood
reinforced valuing a traditional home construct. Frank said, “They came over with three kids, my
brothers and sisters. I was the youngest. It was a good home, you know. Had lots to eat, and it
was always built on hard work.” Frank later mentioned he had a wife and children, and he
resembled his father. He reflected that he had grown up to resemble his father’s behavior,
attitude, and values. He mentioned it was hard for him to relax because his father taught him
hard work and diligence. Frank said, “I think those were sort of the core competencies that I
think my parents sort of instilled in me, which I really truly appreciate.” The early years’
influence was revealed in these respondents creating the traditional American familiarity of
youth or constructing what was missing from youth. Frank demonstrated growing up mimicking
his father in attitude and family structure. In all instances, the men’s family structure was
influenced by what they learned and experienced in adolescence.
Learning and Family Structures
The data indicated that gender roles are learned at a young age and continue to influence
behavior in adulthood. All eight interviewees spoke about the impact of their youth and how it
affects their families today. Most participants mimicked or aligned with lessons taught to them at
73

a young age. Specifically, their current family structures represented similar themes to their
childhood home, including gender roles. In line with much of the prior research, gender roles
played out in the participant’s youth. In the literature review, Starr and Zurbriggen (2016) stated
that children’s environments influence the learned behavior that continues into adulthood,
materializing in the workplace. Six participants spoke to having a father and mother who taught
them hard work, integrity, and life lessons. Ryan said, “My parents taught me to value faith in
God, hard work, education, and not making excuses, and so that’s just how I grew up.” James
mentioned, “my mom and dad both worked really hard. They taught my brother and me the value
of hard work but also the value of integrity and reputation.” Frank also said, “It was a good
home…built on hard work and being a good person. I think my parents really instilled in me the
fact of integrity.” Samuel mentioned, “I grew up in extremely humble beginnings, and as most
farm kids do, you work hard and learn how to work hard.”
These same households had fathers who worked outside the home and mothers who
managed the family. Notably, many of the participants’ mothers worked outside the home and
managed the household. Explicitly, the participants had mothers who were caregivers, even
when they had outside responsibilities. Six participants demonstrated they grew up with a mother
who adhered to the woman’s traditional role in managing the household but also worked outside
the home. Markedly, these gender roles have evolved from women working only inside the
family to having the responsibility to work inside and outside the home (Hodges & Park, 2013).
According to Hodges and Park (2013), although women play a more significant role in working
outside the home, society continues to place more value on managing the household and being a
mother. The study’s findings are aligned in that even when the participant’s mother worked
outside of the home, the theme showed that they continued to manage the domestic duties and be
74

recognized for this. Ryan said, “My mom worked, and she stopped working when I was 16 or 17,
but she managed a house. She’s the oldest of 16, so she knew how to manage a house.” James
mentioned, “Mom worked at a jewelry store as a salesperson. Most of the time, mom was there
[home]. She would work when we were at school, and so we always had a parent there.” Having
mom in the home supports prior research that women tend to manage the house whether or not
they worked outside of the household. Hodges and Park (2013) pointed out that roles differ based
on the gender of the parent. The findings are aligned with the concept that while women continue
to evolve their professional exposure in the workplace, society still values the role of women as
mothers (Hodges & Park, 2013). These dual roles, reinforced in the findings, create conflict and
stress for women who hold both responsibilities of mother and professional (Hodges & Park,
2013).
Interestingly, three interviewees grew up with divorce disrupting the household or having
lost their father when they were young. These experiences created a difference in how the
parents supported the household. In these instances, this translated to the children helping
manage the home, including caring for siblings, mom playing both roles, and other family
support. These leaders mentioned their upbringing impacted their current family structure,
demonstrating they learned from their childhood. Timothy said, “There’s still disruption that
comes with divorce and those sort of things, and I became a little bit more of a parental figure for
at least a pretty good chunk of my siblings.” He represented that his childhood impacted his
current family structure, the longevity of his marriage, and his decision to have children.
Timothy mentioned, “Married, two kids, I did make a choice. I can tell you it’s growing up in a
house with that many kids and recognizing that it was great, but there’s a lot of sacrifices that
75

come with it.” He also said, “It probably influenced me a little bit, and I was later to marry
because I really didn’t want to repeat the cycle.”
Tyler said a single mother raised him due to his father’s death at a young age. The family
consisted of four boys, and he was the youngest. Because of this, he grew up adapting to frequent
change but later in life created a family and stability aligned with societal gender roles. Tyler
mentioned, “When you asked me how it played out, it’s really simple. The number one thing I’ve
always wanted out of my life is family.” He went on to say, “I changed [majors] after my
freshman year because I didn’t think I could be a successful actor and focus when I graduated on
having a family.” The findings demonstrated that family and gender continue to play a role in
behaviors in American households. Interestingly, regardless of how the participants grew up, the
expected American family structure and gender roles greatly influenced their future family
makeup. Thus, SCT is reinforced as all participants learned from their youth what is acceptable
and applied these learnings to their current family structure. This finding underscored that
learned gender roles continue through adulthood and impact the individuals’ beliefs and
behavior.
Learning in the Workplace
An additional finding in this study shows that learning endures over time and impacts the
workplace. The conceptual framework identified that learned gender roles are brought forward to
adulthood, creating a culture of power and inequity. The data represented the conceptual
framework of individuals learning from their environment and influencing the workplace. One
essential finding in the study demonstrated that learning happens in the workplace and impacts
organizational culture. Bandura (2005) pointed out that learning is ongoing, not just in
childhood, with or without intention. The participants’ environment continued to shape their
76

behavior throughout their career. Specifically, the workplace setting educated the respondents,
strengthened their beliefs, and shifted their behavior. Seemingly, the richer the personal
connection to the learning event, the more impactful the experience was on the participant’s
values. Notably, these values were not changed by learnings later in life; workplace experiences
enhanced them. Most respondents indicated they learned hard work and integrity from their
parents. Frank mentioned, “Being respectful and respect for your parents, your elders, and people
in general in life. I just think I got a really solid grounding, I think, of good integrity.” James also
mentioned about his parents “just tried to teach us how to become men of character and integrity,
so I give a lot of credit to my upbringing.” James went on to say,
I think it’s because we were taught, everyone is the same. I mean, the guy that swept the
floor at the school. He rode a motorcycle. I’ll never forget him. My dad would stop and
talk to him and say, “Thanks for taking care of the kid’s school.” They didn’t treat him
any different than the principal.
These statements support that the workplace did not create the values that the respondents held,
but experiences reinforced these values.
According to Bandura (2005), learning happens through modeling, interpreting, applying,
and implementing behavior. This cycle supports the concept that participants continue to learn
and use these lessons in the workplace. Prior research indicates men feel comfortable in
homogeneous environments (Acker, 2009). This setting leads to comfort with people who hold
the same beliefs, behave, interpret, and speak the same (Acker, 2009). Many of the interviewees
supported the concept of homogeny in their upbringing, meaning they grew up with people who
were similar to them from a race, economic, and thought perspective. The participants indicated
they grew up with little money and were considered lower income in neighborhoods where
77

people were all similar to them from an ethnic and socio-economic class perspective. James said,
“There was no diversity. There was no real disparity of income. I mean, everyone was lower to
lower middle class. Everyone was the same.” Timothy mentioned, “I was the first in my family
to graduate from college, and we didn’t have a lot of money.” Ryan noted, “I grew up in a small,
segregated city, and that’s what I saw. That was my environment until I graduated from high
school.” He went on to say, “We were able to emerge from poverty to what I would consider
lower middle class.”
Once in the workplace, the leaders were exposed to differences and applied this learning
to their careers. The data show behavior-changing events influenced the culture the respondents
set in the organizations they led. The impactful experiences included leading a group where the
participant was “the only” in the unit. Specifically, three leaders experienced leading a team that
was visually different from their ethnic background or gender. These three participants relocated
throughout their retail careers, which exposed them to different areas and people. These leaders
moved to diverse regions and had teams where they were the leaders and outsiders. They learned
that leading with humility and building a relationship of trust with the team was the way to
achieve results. James mentioned,
I learned a lot about diversity. In my first job with a previous company, I was the only
White leader in the whole district, and I was the only one. I felt like the outsider, and the
team taught me so much about how to talk about and deal with [diversity].
James felt his team of all different leaders supported and helped him, and he was shaped by that
event, saying, “Those experiences probably helped me understand [diversity] a little more.”
Timothy also experienced being “the only” in a leadership situation. He mentioned,
78

The [other country] is probably the best diversity training I’ve ever had because it’s the
only time in my life that I can tell you I know exactly what it feels like to be the only
person who looks like you in the room.
He went on to say, “The only way I knew how to deal with it was to be as humble as possible, to
be honest, about what I don’t know, and then to ask as many questions as I can.” These
experiences support the concept that similarity creates comfort for people, and individuals create
networks of people who are like them. This statement from Timothy underscored the comfort of
a homogenous culture but indicated that growth happened when he learned about other people
who were different. Timothy mentioned, “We are actually sort of hardwired to spend time with
people who share similar experiences.” Experiencing being “the only” created discomfort but
drove growth in understanding and empathy for others.
Ryan connected with the concept of “the only,” as he was used to being the “only one” in
the room but took the opportunity to teach others his experiences to make them more inclusive
leaders. Ryan mentioned, “I try to be conscious typically. It’s the first time somebody reports to
a person of color when they report to me.” He also said, “I’m conscious of that because part,
what I try to do is educate.” Ryan indicated that he was used to being “the only” in the room but
used his position of power to educate senior leaders that reported to him. This education included
social injustice issues, personal experiences, and his perspective on diversity in the company.
Ryan encourages his leaders to have these same conversations at home, understanding the impact
home has on learning and creating future leaders. Ryan said,
To have a comfortable environment for an uncomfortable conversation, for me, that’s
part of my responsibility that I take on. I educate my team, and so that’s how I try to
leverage my ethnicity and leverage my background. It is just more than business. I tell
79

them, “Go sit around the kitchen table at home with your family and share this
conversation.”
These leaders underscored that learning applies to the future workplace. Specifically, they
learned the importance of an inclusive culture. Frank also demonstrated he learned early in the
workplace and applied these learnings to his future organization. Frank did not experience a
culture of diversity or inclusion. He acknowledged experiencing a culture with less focus on
gender equity in his previous companies. Frank mentioned, “I look back. I go to working in my
previous company, which would have been in the 90s. It was a corporate tower. We were there,
and I’d say was probably not all that diverse now that I think back to it.” He elaborated,
From a gender perspective, there were certainly women in the buying ranks, certainly
women in the clerical ranks, and administrative ranks. There were only one or two that
stand out to me that were in the leadership ranks, VP or above. One, in particular, I ended
up working with. She was a really, really great boss, great, great person, and she was the
one that got to the highest level, but I say that was probably lacking diversity, and that
was in [original country]. It’s not something ever talked about or thought about. Lacking
diversity from a race perspective for sure, and it was certainly lacking from a gender
[perspective].
This experience was essential to highlight. Frank reflected that his previous organizations had
little focus on inclusion and later identified that his current company does not have a specific
process for inclusion. Later in the interview Frank indicated his organization lacks equity of
women representation. Frank pointed out,
I think we’ve been diverse from a gender perspective, but still, it’s a struggle in those
leadership ranks. We have a lot of females. I mean, our female population mathematically
80

certainly outweighs our male population in this office for sure, but yet we look at the
senior ranks, we have one. One member of executive group that’s a female, and that’s it,
and we’ve been there for a while since I’ve been here. We had my counterpart. She was a
female, obviously, and she left a number of years ago, so since then has really been one
who works for me: my chief merchandising officer. Other than that, really, we have not
had the diversity of gender, and again we’ve not had diversity of race or sexual
orientation at that senior, senior level, which we’re aware of we’ve talked about a lot.
Notably, the concept of learning in the workplace is supported whether the learning demonstrates
an inclusive culture or one that is homogeneous. Frank’s experience early in his career of not
having a strategic focus on building an inclusive culture created a lack of importance at his future
workplace. Frank talked about a less structured focus on gender diversity coupled with little
empathy of understanding different perspectives. This lack of system and empathy was identified
when Frank mentioned a female who works in his organization who felt included. He said,
She reached out to join us here, and one of the reasons she left [previous company] is
actually she joined us because she walks around the building [and] she sees a lot more
people like her, and she feels like we’re more welcoming and more open, and she told me
that a dozen times. So, that’s fantastic, and again I don’t know, shame on me, I don’t
perceive, I don’t look at it, a different way, but I don’t see it through her eyes, but clearly
she’s seeing it through her eyes and saying I feel better here.
While this individual felt included, Frank identifies there is not a concerted effort to
ensure senior leadership reflects the rest of the company’s population from a gender perspective.
Frank mentioned his organization had not made gender equity a real mission connected to his
early learning where the previous company did not have a structured process. The teaching in his
81

last organization was a culture of homogeneity with very little diversity. Applying this to his
current state of mind, Frank mentioned, “To me, there is no diversity. There are only people
there. Once you start to divide them in any bucket, that becomes wrong from that perspective, so
just individual is my perspective.” According to Bonilla-Silva and Dietrich (2011), the concept
of not recognizing challenges for diverse individuals is color-blind racism. Connecting this
concept to Frank’s experience is not to say Frank is racist, but there is a link between refusing to
acknowledge differences and allowing bias to become a natural part of the environment (Bonilla-
Silva & Dietrich, 2011). Previously, Frank experienced a homogeneous culture leading to a lack
of diversity in the workplace. Because of Frank’s prior experiences, he translated acknowledging
diversity as wrong and part of the equity issue.
The challenge with not seeing race is aligned with Bonilla-Silva and Dietrich’ (2011)
research. If race no longer matters, then it is easier to explain gaps in equity to deficiencies,
natural social gaps, and market demands (Bonilla-Silva & Dietrich, 2011). Refusing to
acknowledge bias in the workplace creates a lack of urgency to fix the problem (Bonilla-Silva &
Dietrich, 2011). The data shows Frank’s lack of action and empathy resulted in few to no
improvements in gender equity in his organization. If one refuses to admit there is are
differences, then people are treated according to the master narrative, and the marginalized voice
is muted (Bonilla-Silva & Dietrich, 2011). The data indicated prior experiences influence future
behavior. These leaders represent that people learn gender roles at a young age, but they also
learn inclusion and respect throughout adulthood and in the workplace. The data showed leaders
who experience people different from what they know in their comfort zone can combat a
homogenous environment. Timothy, Ryan, and James’ experiences showed that a personal
connection to other people increases an inclusive mindset in the future workplace. Additionally,
82

Frank’s experience demonstrated value must be placed on diversity throughout one’s career to be
included in intentional plans in the future workplace.
Leadership
The data showed that gender roles continue to be reflected in the organization’s
leadership. According to Acker (2006), due to sex-role assumptions, men and women select roles
aligned with societal expectations. Starr and Zurbriggen (2016) explored how people are placed
into industries and indicate that women are selected for roles aligned with human resources and
merchandising, not operations or technology. The study’s results align with Starr and
Zurbriggen’s (2016) work. Many of the women senior leaders in the respondents’ organizations
fall into gender-appropriate female aligned roles. Samuel, Frank, Mark, Timothy, Ryan, and
Tyler spoke about women leaders in merchandising, human resources, head of call centers, and
marketing. These roles are congruent with traditional acceptable female positions. Mark
mentioned a female “runs our customer call centers,” and Frank mentioned, “One [woman] who
works for me [is] my chief merchandising officer.” Notably, Ryan and Mark spoke to women
leaders heading up traditionally masculine positions in technology or operations. Ryan said,
“Two years later, I have three female executive vice presidents, one’s chief information officer,
one the chief marketing officer, and one the head of HR.” These examples demonstrate many
women continued to work in accepted female roles, but there is growth in the positions of
operations and information.
Notably, the data demonstrate that while gender roles continue to make it into the
workplace, there is some growth in how leadership is defined and in the roles women are seeking
and acquiring. RQ1 and RQ2 explored how the participants defined leadership and what they
valued in hiring. The findings identified the participants’ definition of good leadership and
83

connected to RQ3’s results regarding perceptions of leadership and inclusion. The findings
showed leadership definitions have shifted to be more inclusive of qualities that have been
traditionally labeled as female. Previous research indicates men are seen as assertive, confident,
and decisive (Cross et al., 2017). Conversely, Mavin et al. (2014) pointed out that acceptable
female behavior is empathy, caring, and being subordinate to men. Interestingly, the responses
indicated a shift in leadership competencies that are valued today over previous research.
Specifically, the respondents indicated a need for leaders to exhibit traditionally defined
feminine qualities like team building, empathy, and compassion. James said,
Maybe that’s why I think women make such great leaders. They often tend to be more
thoughtful and more collaborative and more compassionate, empathetic, but I’ve never
thought of it as a gender-specific attribute. I think there’s a common mistake that people
think leaders have to be, you know, really tough and really direct, hard, and angry.
He went on to say,
The best leaders are more even. They’re more calm. They’re more thoughtful or strategic.
It’s not who can throw the chair the furthest and scream the loudest. When I came up,
that’s how it was. I mean that the leaders with the biggest edge were the best and the
most feared, and people cowered when they came around. And, you know, it’s just
changed. I don’t view it as masculine or feminine, but it’s interesting I’ve never even
thought about that.
Some participants acknowledged early in their careers the use of gender stereotypes in leadership
competencies. However, most participants did not identify with these beliefs today. These c-suite
leaders recognized characteristics like leadership development of the team and individuals along
with compassion as good leadership, previously identified as a deficiency.
84

Leadership Redefined
The findings show that the definition of leadership is changing, and these c-suite leaders
considered good governance as someone with qualities in team development and driving results.
Research Questions 1 and 2 explored the participants’ expression of leadership and how they
described high potential leaders in their company. The goal was to understand what
competencies these leaders perceived as beneficial in leadership. The first finding is that seven
interviewees defined leadership with qualities that are traditionally considered feminine, such as
team, development, collaboration, empathy, listening, and humility. This is important because
compassion, care, and empathy were traditionally defined as feminine aligned qualities (Cross et
al., 2017).
Differently, previous research indicated men demonstrated assertiveness, decisiveness,
and efficacy (Cross et al., 2017), meaning, results, decisiveness, and lack of empathy were
valued over collaboration, teamwork, and compassion, perceived feminine qualities (Cross et al.,
2017). The respondents demonstrated a shift in these definitions. Specifically, they described
qualities essential for any top leader as care, compassion, and team. Samuel described a high-
potential leader in his organization as having “the ability to create a learning culture and
development culture for people. In addition to that, she has produced good results.” Mark
defined leadership as influence, empathy, building and supporting a team, and business
knowledge. Both of these responses showed a balance between historically defined feminine and
masculine qualities in determining successful leadership. Interestingly, all leaders indicated that
the perceived feminine aligned qualities of empathy, team development, and compassion were
not only valued but vital in today’s leadership. Timothy said, “leadership is defined across four
axes: about how you make decisions around talent, how you help bring focus to situations, how
85

you make decisions when it’s not simple, and about influence.” Samuel said when asked to
define leadership, “It’s about tapping into someone’s soul and helping get them motivated and
excited and focused on a direction.” He went on to say, “helping them become the best person
they can be.” The data suggest that the c-suite retail leaders in this study value a balanced
leadership approach. Specifically, competencies previously valued less due to being perceived
feminine are now seen as necessary for leaders today.
The data show that stereotypical feminine skills are more valued than previous research
indicated. While the respondents did not define competencies from a gendered perspective, two
leaders recognized competencies from a feminine and masculine lens. Timothy mentioned,
Yes, I absolutely believe that it has. I think it was so tilted towards masculine that if I
think about the strong female leaders that I either worked for or worked with as peers
early in my career, they generally had gotten to that position because they were more
masculine or more, you know, they cussed more. I mean, there was no ability to show
softness. There was almost an over-correction.
One respondent acknowledged they disagreed with some societal stereotypes. Tyler said,
Emotion, wrongfully, by the way, has always been assigned to the female gender in our
society, and the reality is a woman who shows up in front of a guy that is prejudiced and
does think she’s going to be emotional and actually has a great conversation, and there is
emotion in there, but there’s also logic in there, and they can appreciate that, and I think
those women are spectacular.
Other participants indicated their personal leadership style was more aligned with what
previous research identified as feminine. Timothy said, “I learned vulnerability, which I think
served me really, really well.” He also identified that his leadership style was more aligned with
86

building trust and listening. Timothy said in the mid-1990s, “a lot of leaders were reading a
servant leadership book, but it was still run by somebody who was a big personality.” He
referred to leadership in the 1990s as making people conform to the leader, and “that would have
never worked for me; it was best for me as a leader to learn more about what makes you tick and
what you know.” Timothy’s personal leadership style aligned with what was stereotypically
perceived as feminine. James, when describing a high potential male leader, said, “He’s so
humble that people are drawn and want to work on his team because he gets people promoted, he
develops talent, and he holds people accountable.” This example demonstrates a balance of
developing and being humble as feminine stereotypes and accountability as a masculine
stereotype. Additionally, Ryan mentioned, “I think leadership right now is less leadership
characteristics or less gender-specific, and I think it’s just leadership in general.” These examples
indicate that the participants value competencies previously considered feminine as vital to
leadership.
The eight participants launched their careers when leadership was defined differently
than today. Some respondents indicated that time has changed, and the retail industry is learning
the importance of appreciating previously stereotyped feminine qualities. Leadership traits
typically labeled as masculine or feminine have shifted to be considered leadership. This shift
had evolved over the years, with most leaders identifying that leadership was aligned with
masculine qualities when they began their careers. While these participants expressed leadership
as more balanced between team and results, there were still indications that gender plays a role in
these retail organizations.

87

Lingering Gender Expectations
The findings show that while the participants spoke of a more inclusive culture in the
retail industry, statements indicated a continued gender slant in leadership. One participant
described a high potential leader in his organization as a “mamma bear” in terms of how she
gives feedback to her team. The respondent was paying a compliment to the female leader, but
this connection to women being motherly when demonstrating excellent leadership qualities
shows a nod to traditional gender roles. James also demonstrated a lingering belief that women’s
roles could be in the workplace, but he also values female leaders who can execute home duties
and work responsibilities. When asked about high potential leaders in the organization, James’
answer included motherhood for the woman leader but did not include fatherhood for the male
leader: “I see a lot of intellectual horsepower with her. She’s a very good planner, great mother,
balances her life, you know, kids and husband, and just does a really nice job.” James described
the talented male leader as, “He is a very good executer. He is strategic but tends to be a little
more ‘the first answer is the right answer,’ but just gets stuff done.” He went on to say, “The
more you give him, the better he is, and he’s very good with people, very collaborative, and an
excellent communicator.” Notably, James indicated that having a family at home should not be a
barrier to women in the workplace. James said,
Female up-and-comers, they just don’t know how good they are, or they think, ‘I want to
be a mom, [and] I want to be a wife,’ and I’m like, so, I’m a father. There’s no reason
you can’t be an executive and still raise children.
While James’ statements indicate that he strives to set a culture of inclusion in the
workplace, there is still an indication that he values women in the role of a mother, a concept
supported by prior research. While he described himself as a father, he did not use the male’s
88

role at home to identify leadership strengths. Notably, no respondent referred to men in
connection to fatherly roles or masculine stereotypes. A different leader stated that the women to
whom he has reported are usually better leaders because they are more “thoughtful,
collaborative, and more compassionate, and empathetic.” This may indicate that while gender is
not a conscious connection, it is present in organizational culture. The participant’s statements
also suggest that as women’s representation has increased over the years, the impact of these
traditionally feminine qualities has taught others the value of taking care of the team to achieve
results. The data shows that the perceived feminine leadership qualities are now valued in
leadership today, but gender roles continue to influence the workplace.
Leadership Double Standards
While the data demonstrate a more blurred line between how the respondents perceived
leadership characteristics, there seems to be a double standard for women regarding expected
behavior. According to Carlin et al. (2018), there is a perception that women demonstrate less
efficacy in the workplace. Previous research points out that for women to help themselves
advance in the workplace, they must show more confidence and increase self-efficacy (Carlin et
al., 2018). Thus, putting the onus on the marginalized person to change the power dynamic
(Acker, 2006). The participants demonstrated the same belief that the person with little to no
power needed to be the one who changed. The respondents often referred to self-efficacy, the
belief in one’s ability to achieve a result, as confidence. Multiple participants in this study shared
the perception that women have less self-efficacy than men. Interestingly, multiple participants
pointed out self-efficacy as an issue in female leaders that women must fix. Three participants
spoke to women needing to improve their efficacy and self-assuredness as a leadership gap.
89

Three participants argued that women need to have more confidence in the workplace, like their
male counterparts.
This study specifically focused on men’s perceptions that impact women’s advancement
because men have the power. This is important to note as participants described themselves as
humble and authentic, but they placed the expectation on women to change and demonstrate
more confidence. Timothy said, “The only way that I knew how to deal with it was to be as
humble as I could be and to be honest about what I don’t know and then ask as many questions
as I can.” This statement indicated that Timothy valued humility and vulnerability as leadership
characteristics for himself. Markedly, three participants expressed humility as a gap in women’s
leadership. James said, “Your male executive counterparts can’t wait to tell me how qualified
they are, you’re actually more qualified, but you’re just out there doing your job with your head
down.” When asked what created humility for women, James indicated that women tend to focus
on doing a good job, and men focus on the next job. James mentioned that when he finds a high-
potential woman with less confidence, he questions whether any leader ever sponsored her or
communicated how good she is. William agreed and mentioned executives must understand,
“how do you help female executives.” Connecting to the concept of learning gender roles at a
young age, William stated that confidence is taught to boys in their youth: “It’s learned in
childhood. Boys are taught to be tough and assume they are right.” William indicated humility, a
quality taught to girls at a young age, continues to be seen as a hindrance to leadership, and these
leaders indicated it is something that women must change. He also mentioned that he prefers the
female style of humility, but it is essential to show confidence in front of the board of directors,
not humility. The respondents indicated a need for women to demonstrate similar levels of self-
90

assuredness as their male counterparts, which conflicts with the notion of valuing authenticity
and humility.
Additionally, previous research found that for women to be accepted in professional
settings, it is essential for them to comply with expected gender roles (Acker, 2006). Women
who step outside of these norms often experience backlash, including exclusion (Kray et al.,
2017). Additionally, men are encouraged to support masculine roles to be accepted into the
preferred social elite group (Kray et al., 2017). This alignment upholds power and privilege
offered to men in the ingroup (Kray et al., 2017). The data support previous research that
indicates women are expected to behave in line with the accepted gender role. As Mavin et al.
(2014) pointed out, female leaders not aligned to the expected gender norms experience
microaggressions when they step outside of the expected role. Unknowingly agreeing with
previous research, Tyler demonstrated disapproval towards women exhibiting overconfidence.
He indicated that lack of humility and arrogance is typically perceived as a masculine quality.
Tyler mentioned, “I think women have to be very careful, very, very careful not to think that they
need an ego,” indicating women should avoid demonstrating traditionally masculine perceived
characteristics.
Notably, these same leaders also identified a gap in men’s leadership of being overly
confident, meaning women overuse humility, and men leverage their egos. This finding
contradicts previous research that men must be self-assured, secure, and aggressive to be
considered a leader (Hodges & Park, 2013). Two additional leaders connect men to the concept
of being arrogant. Both said that men need to be less ego-driven and more empathetic. William
mentioned that women need to believe in themselves more, and men need to have less
“arrogance.” He explained during a meeting, a male direct report took the opportunity to
91

demonstrate his strengths, and a female direct report spent the time talking about where she
needed help. Tyler mentioned, “Egos traditionally in the workplace have been developed by men
more than women.” He went on to say, “I think men have to continue to learn how to check their
egos and continue to be empathetic and walk in other people’s shoes.” While some respondents
placed the onus on women to change, Tyler also identified where men needed to adjust. Tyler
said that men could help by “stepping back” and making room for women at the leadership table:
“We have to create the space, or you can’t move into it, and I don’t understand why people don’t
understand that.” Tyler also said, “If men don’t create that space, it’s going to take us a hell of a
lot longer to get there [gender equity].” In this statement, Tyler identified that men have the
power in the workplace. In order for women to influence gender equity, men must make changes.
This statement aligns with feminist theory that to achieve an equitable workplace, power
dynamics must shift in the workplace hierarchy.
While the findings showed previously feminine and masculine leadership qualities are
now valued in today’s definition of a great leader, there were still indications of lingering gender
roles. Interestingly, the data showed the gender stereotype of humility is less valued in female
leaders but is wanted from men leaders. As shown in previous research, when women fail to
align to the expected feminine norms, there is a risk of exclusion from power and social status
(Kray et al., 2017). If men look for the most confident leader to promote, they will continue to
select men, putting women at a disadvantage for advancement (Kray et al., 2017). In the future, it
would be interesting to explore the difference in humility and arrogance as the participants
believed it was connected to gender, not experiences. Findings for this study suggest that while
gender equity and leadership definitions are improving, gender bias persists and is influenced by
childhood and workplace learning.
92

Summary
The data show that senior leaders set the company culture, which is reflected in the
selection process. The c-suite leaders all understood that culture and awareness were vital to
gender equity. Their role in creating the right culture was essential to achieving buy-in for the
entire organization and increasing women’s representation in senior leadership. Additionally,
awareness, creating a process, identifying what is needed for the position, and acting reduced
bias in selection and increased gender representation. The findings showed organizations must
have a process to select talent, and they must not waiver from the process to increase equity.
Many participants acted, but three leaders included accountability in their action plan and moved
results quickly.
Additionally, the findings support the concept that learned gender roles are carried
forward into adulthood but that the definition of leadership is evolving. The leaders learned
about gender roles from how they grew up and from their experiences in the workplace. Results
also indicate that learning continues throughout the leader’s career and is applied in the
workplace. Other findings show growth in the retail industry. Specifically, the definition of
leadership has evolved, and both team and results are valued. The participants showed a balanced
approach to defining leadership, embracing team development, collaboration, and results. While
there was growth, the data also indicated lingering gender bias not being identified or addressed.
While this study is not generalizable to all of retail, in Chapter Five, I will identify possible
recommendations and next steps for retail organizations that want to grow an inclusive culture
and increase gender representation and equity in senior leadership positions.
93

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
Chapter Five discusses the findings and identifies recommendations for next steps.
Additionally, this chapter connects the findings to the conceptual framework recognizing links
and shifts. The discussion section highlights the assumptions, reinforced ideas, and new concepts
of the hypothesis of gender roles and their impact on women’s advancement in retail. I offer
three recommendations for improvement of practice. These recommendations are brought
forward from the experiences of the c-suite leaders and their suggestions of what is working to
improve women’s advancement in their organization. Finally, I identify suggestions for future
research to further this topic and field of study.
Discussion of Findings and Results
The concepts addressed in the literature review connected to culture, selection, learning,
and gender roles, specifically learned gender roles that influence a culture of power and
homogeneity. Previous research identified the views of men’s power in the workplace to exclude
women and others. The theories leveraged in the conceptual framework were SCT and feminist
theory. Social cognitive theory is displayed in how individuals learn and how behavior is
influenced by the environment and other’s actions (Bandura, 2005). Feminist theory explores the
concept that everyone deserves equity and organizational hierarchies based on men’s power
should be dismantled (Ferguson, 2017). Specifically, feminist theory connects the concepts of
power, hierarchy, and equity by linking men’s power to the unfair application of rules, access,
and advancement. These theories worked together in the conceptual framework to demonstrate
that learned behavior and beliefs about gender are leveraged in the workplace to create power
inequity.
94

The study’s findings were that the c-suite male participants set the culture in their
organization. Specifically, all participants identified culture as necessary to inclusion and
something they intentionally focused on and discussed. Additional discussions with the
respondents acknowledged that the hierarchy in place sometimes increased obstacles of equity
when different levels of leadership are not brought into an environment of gender equity.
Explicitly, some males reinforced a culture that they experienced in their careers, upholding
custom and gender roles, meaning a traditional male culture of working overtime, relocating, and
prioritizing work over family. In some cases, these conventional norms reduced the impact of an
equitable culture by excluding women with family duties. Previous research addressed that
culture is vital to engagement and belonging (Berdahl et al., 2018). As Berdahl et al. (2018)
pointed out, focusing on removing a culture of masculinity creates a healthier environment for
women and most men (Berdahl et al., 2018). The data showed that changing a toxic culture was
vital to improving inclusion. Participants who changed the company culture outlined the exact
actions they took to improve inclusion. Change was successfully driven through specific steps of
awareness, action, and accountability to improve gender equity in the workplace. Another theme
explored in the literature review that connected to the data was the selection process used and the
impact on the advancement of women leaders. Many respondents identified the importance of
having a selection process to remove bias from the advancement process. Participants spoke to
the importance of reducing stress and individual influence to create a fair process. The
respondents connected inclusion to culture but may have overlooked a biased selection process
and may also be influenced by a poor culture.
95

Chapter Four’s theme of learned gender roles connects the concept of learning at a young
age and gender roles applied in the workplace. The findings demonstrate known values and
behavior learned in childhood then applied in adulthood, specifically in the family structure. The
participants shared multiple examples of their childhood impacting their current family makeup
and design. While the conceptual framework addressed learning at a young age, it did not
represent learning at other stages in life, something that SCT explicitly calls out. One concept
that appeared in the findings not identified in the conceptual framework drawing is that learning
not only happens at a young age, but individuals also continue to learn. The study aligned, with
SCT, found that education continues to happen, and workplace experiences can strengthen values
learned in youth and influence adult behavior. This was represented through the participants’
actions and attitudes. While all gave their parents and childhood experience credit for shaping
who they are today, many spoke to workplace experiences that continued to teach lifelong
lessons. Reviewing the conceptual framework, an additional level of learning added to the
workplace would sufficiently demonstrate these findings. Specifically, the leaders who
experienced an impactful workplace event were more motivated to change an exclusive culture
and decrease gender representation gaps.
Finally, the last theme that emerged indicated improvements in what the respondents
valued in top leadership. Specifically, defining leadership through the lens of gender. Most
participants identified previously perceived feminine qualities like compassion and empathy as
vital to leadership today. Previous research identified feminine qualities as incongruent with
leadership and, therefore, saw women as insufficient leaders. This shift in defining leadership
indicated an appreciation for talent that can focus on teams and results, regardless of the
96

individual’s gender. Notably, while all participants identified female talent in their organizations,
some spoke to the lack of sponsorship impacting efficacy for women. The respondents identified
lack of efficacy as a female characteristic that needed to be changed by the women leaders.
Interestingly, most leaders valued humility and authenticity but still identified efficacy as an
inherent flaw in the female character. This gender-identified quality is reflected in previous
research as an issue perpetuating discrimination in the workplace (Carlin et al., 2018). The
findings connect to much of the previous research in terms of growth and evolution in sections of
the conceptual framework while indicating lingering gender roles in the system. The data and
previous research led to recommendations. These suggestions intend to help senior leaders learn,
develop a solid inclusive culture, and quickly change gender equity and advancement in retail.
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation 1
The first recommendation pertains to Succession Plans and Intentional Placement.
Succession plans coupled with intentional placement allow leaders to plan career growth of
potential senior leaders to give experiences that teach inclusion. Explicitly, to give high potential
leaders assignments before senior leadership where they are the minority and gain the experience
of leading people through humility, connection, and trust. Social cognitive theory indicates that
humans learn from the social system to include their environment and others (Bandura, 2005).
Specifically, individuals, behavior, and the environment all interact and influence each other
(Bandura, 2005). Three interviewees showed a track record of moving gender and diversity
representation in leadership within 12 to 24 months. These leaders used a multi-step approach to
improving culture, inclusion, and gender equity. This approach included awareness, specifically
97

educating and identifying gaps in representation. The second step of the process was action,
meaning they took an intentional effort to make changes in their organization and culture.
Finally, these three leaders included a degree of accountability in their plan.
Accountability included performance coaching, financial impact, and in some cases,
termination. The action steps identified represent the organizations in this study that moved
results the fastest. Interestingly, the participants who moved gender representation the most
experienced a leadership position where they led a different group from a race or gender
perspective than themselves. The participants indicated they were “the only” and learned
humility, finding common ground, and building trust to deliver results. Additionally, all eight
participants demonstrated that collaboration, authenticity, or creating a learning culture is vital to
inclusive leadership. Duchek et al. (2019) indicated that leaders must possess the ability to learn
and adapt, deal with ambiguity, build relationships, show resilience, and leverage their
experience with working with different people in different situations. Giving high potential
leaders varied experiences allows them to grow in respect and inclusion and, as a result, improve
gender equity.
Recommendation 2
The second recommendation pertains to inclusive Recruitment and Development and is
to implement transparent recruitment and development programs that increase the talent pool of
women when selecting leaders for advancement roles. Recruitment of female talent is essential to
changing gender equity and representation. Recruitment includes attracting, sourcing, and hiring
talent. In this study, six participants indicated that having a diverse pipeline is essential to
increase female representation in an organization. The concept of a “leaky pipeline” in the
98

literature review explained that the number of women prospects for senior leadership decreases
throughout the pipeline (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). Specifically, fewer women are
included in the interview process for senior jobs (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). The
respondents supported the concept of intentionally changing the talent pool numbers to increase
female representation. Explicitly, the participants agreed that achieving increased women’s
selection requires increasing the representation among interviewees. Previous research also
indicated women could be leveraged to improve gender gaps (Kunze & Miller, 2014). Increasing
women’s representation in the workplace increases the ability to recruit talented women (Kunze
& Miller, 2014). Specifically, women can recruit other females with higher success than men
(Kunze & Miller, 2014). The findings demonstrated this concept multiple times. Two leaders
explicitly mentioned they started changing female representation in their company by hiring
women. Those new hires had a talented network of women they could recruit and attract, which
started changing the culture and numbers.
The participants supported a qualified talent group that includes women, and a research-
based selection process yields a more varied employee base. The data showed recruiters and
hiring managers must identify a talent pool of qualified individuals who align with
predetermined company values, leadership competencies, and qualifications needed to be
successful in the position. Additionally, the data represented that, before sourcing, it is important
to identify skills that can be taught once the individual is hired but that are not necessary to
obtain the job. Predetermining requirements and qualifications reduce bias while interviewing by
decreasing individual beliefs and increasing group alignment (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012).
This approach also reduces experience bias and is more inclusive for marginalized individuals
99

(van den Brink & Benschop, 2012). In addition to predetermined criteria, transparency in the
process is essential to gender equity. As stated in the literature review, the lack of transparency in
the selection process creates a sense of wonder and mystery of how the process works (van den
Brink & Benschop, 2012). This lack of transparency allows leaders to be exclusive in their
approach and selection (van den Brink & Benschop, 2012).
For internal talent, on-the-job development is vital to building the pipeline. Multiple
leaders spoke to identifying female talent, coaching, and feedback as essential to the
development of women to increase the selection group. This development includes sponsorship.
The findings showed that reducing prior biased expectations and offering access and support
improves gender equity and representation. Five of the eight participants interviewed indicated
they had formal and informal sponsors that identified them as talent early in their careers and
helped develop them. This sponsorship allowed these leaders to learn how to navigate obstacles
and access information leveraged in their development. The participants aligned with previous
research that sponsorship helps develop talent and improves chances of support and success.
Recommendation 3
The third recommendation regards an inclusive culture. It is to create a strategy to change
a culture of inequity that includes awareness, action, and accountability. The findings
represented that change happened when leaders leveraged a multi-step approach to gender
equity. This change included awareness, action, and accountability. Awareness is the first step.
All participants indicated they understood the importance of gender and diversity inclusion and
knew the gaps in their company. These leaders drove awareness amongst their leadership team
and throughout the organization. Awareness is an essential first step to changing representation
100

numbers but, results did not move with just awareness. Two participants focused on awareness
and did not set goals, take action, or measure success. As a result, these leaders, to date, had not
successfully moved the gender and diversity representation in their organization. Successful
awareness included educating leaders on gender representation data, initiating conversations
about inclusion, and helping leaders identify where they are not being inclusive.
Additionally, six participants had a multi-step action plan to improve diversity
representation in their organization. Besides awareness, these leaders set an intentional strategy
to source, recruit, and select women. This aligns with the literature review, as de Vries (2015)
indicated that most successful leaders drive business initiatives by setting goals, making
intentional plans, and following up. De Vries also suggested that men must drive gender change
to increase equity for women and shift gender power dynamics. If men executed gender
initiatives similar to other strategies, the issue would be solved (de Vries, 2015). According to de
Vries, words must match actions, showing a commitment to changing gender inequity, or
undoing gender in the workplace. Successful action steps included, recruiting a diverse talent
pool to interview, identifying needed qualities for a position prior to the interview process, and
creating a structured selection process. The selection process includes structured interviews
evaluating specific competencies and organizational values and recap discussion to ensure
appropriate assessment and alignment.
The final step that three participants leveraged to make changes in their organizations
was holding the team and individuals accountable. The findings showed accountability was
needed to make swift change in culture and gender representation. According to Acker (2006),
men giving up their advantage are often only produced with a threat to financial stability or a
101

loss of some kind for men. The findings supported this concept. Specifically, three of the eight
leaders included goals in annual reviews. An additional leader spoke to performance
management up to the termination of leaders who had not bought into equity in the workplace.
These leaders moved results within 12 to 24 months, demonstrating that awareness, action, and
accountability are needed to drive change. Leadership communication, activities, and goals must
align and support the transition to be a safe culture for female and diverse talent (Molefi et al.,
2021).
A Note of Caution
The data reflected a need to educate leaders on intersectionality and the importance of
recognizing the compounded impact of multiple identities. Notably, most leaders spoke to gender
and included other diversity in the conversation. While many participants recognized different
forms of diversity, the conversation continued to identify challenges for all into one solution.
Combining all diversity may lead to one caution. Most of these leaders saw diversity as all
diversity and may miss the importance of intersectionality. Intersectionality is a theory
representing that people who identify with multiple diverse groups tend to have different
experiences than those identifying with one faction (Carbado, 2013). These experiences may not
be better or worse but are commonly different (Carbado, 2013). An example of intersectionality
is gender and race. This intersection of identity creates additional obstacles for women of color
with the need for elevated coping skills (Dickens & Chavez, 2018). Velez et al. (2018) noted that
experiencing racism and sexism causes additional stress, low self-esteem, and increased issues in
the workplace leading to possible turnover. As these authors pointed out, experiencing both
102

sexism and racism makes it challenging to decipher the root cause, identify allies, and figure out
how to prioritize the solutions to combat discrimination (Velez et al., 2018).
Likewise, while this study does not address the plight of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) leaders, I acknowledge that LGBTQI individuals
experience the intersection of sexism and discrimination (Cech & Rothwell, 2020). Additionally,
because of the assumption of cisgender, a transgender female will have a different experience
with more challenges than a cisgender female, including language and beliefs (Cech & Rothwell,
2020). Failing to recognize and address this may create an environment wherein people feel they
must choose one alignment group, hide their identity, or leave for a more inclusive environment
(Cech & Rothwell, 2020). Importantly, recognizing intersectionality, others will continue to
assume how a person identifies and place them in one group or another (Cech & Rothwell,
2020). Additionally, using the correct language of inclusion to ensure all groups feel a sense of
belonging is essential (Cech & Rothwell, 2020). Race and sex are recognized intersections, but
there are many more categories, including nationality, age, and ability (Collins, 2015). While the
specific impact of intersectionality is not in the scope of this study, it is important to
acknowledge this gap in the research and the participant’s definition of diversity.
Limitations and Future Research
It is essential to identify there were limitations to this study. First, from a transferability
perspective across industries, this study represents American retail only. Not all retailers in
America are represented in the survey, limiting the study within retail and across sectors and
other countries. Additionally, the sample is purposeful and limited, as interviewees were male
senior leaders, excluding the female leaders’ perspective. Also, I leveraged my network to attain
103

research participants. As others are attracted to similar people, I have a network of women
leaders who are action-oriented, inclusive, and direct. These women most likely have a network
of men who are inclusive and empathic allies. Most of the participants I interviewed self-
identified as allies. While it gave me hope and encouragement that times are changing, I may
have underestimated the amount of male c-suite leaders who continue to leverage gender in
leadership definitions. Specifically, more leaders may not have bought into increasing women’s
representation and equity in advancement. Furthermore, because of the sensitive topic, research
subjects may be focused on reputation management; thus, they may be less honest in sharing
their perspective, creating a credibility gap.
Another limitation is the time in which this study was conducted. I began this research
project in 2019 and completed it during the global COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic is
proving to have a devastating impact on women in the workplace. McKinsey & Company
conducted a study in 2020 and found that as many as two million women were considering
leaving the workplace due to childcare gaps, industry layoffs, mental health, and burnout
(McKinsey & Company, 2020). According to this report, the improvements women made in
leadership have moved backward (McKinsey & Company, 2020). Women are leaving the
workplace at higher levels than men, a trend that has not happened for over 5 years (McKinsey &
Company, 2020). The pandemic led to mental and financial stressors and little understanding of
how long it will take to rebound (McKinsey & Company, 2020). The effect on women’s
representation and advancement in the workplace is a limitation of this study that does not
devalue the findings but must be considered when solving women’s advancement gaps in retail.
104

Recommendations for future research include COVID-19’s impact on women in the
workplace, specifically, the percentage of women in leadership versus how many left these
positions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Another future research focus is the perspective of
entry-level employees and middle managers at the organizations represented in this study. The
study would identify whether associates and managers tell the same story of an inclusive culture
and feeling of belonging. This triangulation is essential to understand, as the pipeline is a
solution to the gap in women’s advancement. If these associates do not experience the same
culture the c-suite leaders are attempting to drive, then there is an issue. A qualitative and
quantitative study of this audience would be beneficial. Included in this study would also be
turnover and attrition numbers of women in the organizations. Retention would tell a fuller story
of the gender and inclusion culture at all levels of the organization.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand the experience of male c-suite leaders in
retail and gender role beliefs that may impact their selection process. The importance of the
findings showed that while gender roles are still taught and exhibited in America, the right
experience in the workplace teaches leaders different behaviors. Bem (1981) stated that both men
and women must release prescribed gender roles created by the societal norms to gain equity for
all parties. Additionally, this study reflects some elements that are changing. Previous research
showed a heavier trend of defining good leadership through a gender lens. The findings showed
leadership is changing, and leaders must embrace people to drive results. Valuing different forms
of leadership is vital to solving for lack of access, inclusion, and information flow for women’s
advancement to improve (Singh et al., 2010). Finally, multiple leaders demonstrated specific
105

actions to move gender equity. This is not the only way to move results, but a place to start for
leaders focused on equity and advancement for women in their workplace. One question asked in
the literature review was why men would be motivated to change. According to Singh et al.
(2010), men are considered part of the corporate elite and receive benefits from this exclusive
group. Men being motivated to change is vital to identifying the gaps and solving gender equity.
(Singh et al., 2010). The participants demonstrated personal values, alignment to business
expectations, and financial reasons as motivation to change. This problem is vital to address
because increasing women's representation in senior roles improves organizational success,
including financial performance and results (McIntyre et al., 2011).

106

References
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and
Society, 20(4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499
Acker, J. (2009). From glass ceiling to inequality regimes. Sociologie Du Travail, 51(2), 199–
217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soctra.2009.03.004
Alice Paul Institute. (2020). Ratification info state by state.
https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era-ratification-map
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory, 9–35.
http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=501512624
Bell, E., Meriläinen, S., Taylor, S., & Tienari, J. (2019). Time’s up! feminist theory and activism
meets organization studies. Human Relations, 72(1), 4–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790067
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological
Review, 88(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354
Berdahl, J. L., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R. W., & Williams, J. C. (2018). Work as a
masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 422–448.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289
Bonilla-Silva, E., & Dietrich, D. (2011). The sweet enchantment of color-blind racism in
obamerica. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 634(1),
190–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716210389702
California Secretary of State. (2020). Home. https://www.sos.ca.gov
Carbado, D. W. (2013). Colorblind intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, 38(4), 811–845. https://doi.org/10.1086/669666
107

Carlin, B. A., Gelb, B. D., Belinne, J. K., & Ramchand, L. (2018). Bridging the gender gap in
confidence. Business Horizons, 61, 765-774.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.05.006
Cech, E. A., & Rothwell, W. R. (2020). LGBT workplace inequality in the federal workforce:
Intersectional processes, organizational contexts, and turnover considerations. Industrial
& Labor Relations Review, 73(1), 001979391984350-60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919843508
Cohen, P. N. (2013). The persistence of workplace gender segregation in the U.S. Sociology
Compass, 7(11), 889–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12083
Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology,
41(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th edition). SAGE.
Cross, C., Linehan, M., & Murphy, C. (2017). The unintended consequences of role-modelling
behaviour in female career progression. Personnel Review, 46(1), 86–99.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2015-0177
De Mascia, S. (2015). Are women better leaders than men? Human Resource Management
International Digest, 23(7), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-07-2015-0122
de Vries, J. A. (2015). Champions of gender equality: Female and male executives as leaders of
gender change. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34(1), 21–
36. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2013-0031
108

Dickens, D. D.& Chavez, E. L. (2018). Navigating the workplace: The costs and benefits of
shifting identities at work among early career U.S. black women. Sex Roles, 78(11), 760–
774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0844-x
DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power,
status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 473–501.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131805
Duchek, S., Raetze, S., & Scheuch, I. (2019). The role of diversity in organizational resilience.
Business Research (Göttingen), 13(2), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-
0084-8
Ferguson, K. E. (2017). Feminist theory today. Annual Review of Political Science;
Annu.Rev.Polit.Sci., 20(1), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052715-
111648
Flabbi, L., Macis, M., Moro, A., & Schivardi, F. (2016). Do female executives make a
difference? the impact of female leadership on gender gaps and firm performance.
.National Bureau of Economic Research.
Fortune Media. (2020). Fortune 500 list of companies 2020.
https://fortune.com/fortune500/2020/search/?sector=Retailing
Gipson, A. N., Pfaff, D. L., Mendelsohn, D. B., Catenacci, L. T., & Burke, W. W. (2017).
Women and leadership: Selection, development, leadership style, and performance. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(1), 32–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316687247
Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived
suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing
109

organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 530–546.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.011
Hinga, B. (2019). Paradigms of inquiry for practice. https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu
Hodges, A., & Park, B. (2013). Oppositional identities: Dissimilarities in how women and men
experience parent versus professional roles. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology; J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 105(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032681
Hoyt, C. L., & Simon, S. (2011). Female leaders: Injurious or inspiring role models for women?
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 143–157.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310385216
Kelan, E. K. (2017). Men doing and undoing gender at work: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 544–558.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12146
Khilji, S. E., & Pumroy, K. H. (2018). We are strong and we are resilient: Career experiences of
women engineers. Gender, Work & Organization, 26(7), 1032–1052.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12322
Kray, L. J., Howland, L., Russell, A. G., & Jackman, L. M. (2017). The effects of implicit gender
role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs strengthen masculinity to
preserve the status quo (author abstract). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
112(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000124
Kulish, N. (2010). Clinical implications of contemporary gender theory. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, 58(2), 231–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003065110370352
Kunze, A., & Miller, A. R. (2014). Women helping women? evidence from private sector data on
workplace hierarchies (No. w20761). EconLit
110

Ladda, S. (2015). Where are the female coaches? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance, 86(4), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2015.1009804
Latu, I. M., Mast, M. S., Lammers, J., & Bombari, D. (2013). Successful female leaders
empower women’s behavior in leadership tasks. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 49(3), 444–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.003
Latu, I., Mast, M., Bombari, D., Lammers, J., & Hoyt, C. (2018). Empowering mimicry: Female
leader role models empower women in leadership tasks through body posture mimicry.
Sex Roles; A Journal of Research, 80(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-
0911-y
Lease, S., Shuman, W., & Gage, A. (2020). Female and male coworkers: Masculinity, sexism,
and interpersonal competence at work. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(1), 139.
https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000218
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (2006). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Mavin, S., Grandy, G., & Williams, J. (2014). Experiences of women elite leaders doing gender:
Intra‐gender micro‐violence between women. British Journal of Management, 25(3),
439–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12057
McIntyre, R. B., Paulson, R. M., Taylor, C. A., Morin, A. L., & Lord, C. G. (2011). Effects of
role model deservingness on overcoming performance deficits induced by stereotype
threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 301–311.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.774
McKinsey & Company. (2020). Women in the workplace 2020. https://wiw-
report.s3.amazonaws.com/Women_in_the_Workplace_2020.pdf
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
111

Molefi, N., O’Mara, J., & Richter, A. (2021, April). Global diversity, equity and inclusion
benchmark. The Center for Global Inclusion.
https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?SessionID=U163529250X&Action=10&Type=10&
Value=267717
Poljakovic, I., & Dodig, G. (2015). Gender theory flaws. Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 43–73.
Rieley, M. (2014). The changing face of retail trade. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/article/pdf/retail-trade.pdf
Ross‐Smith, A., & Huppatz, K. (2010). Management, women and gender capital. Gender, Work
& Organization, 17(5), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00523.x
Shapiro, M., Ingols, C., & Blake-Beard, S. (2011). Using power to influence outcomes: Does
gender matter? Journal of Management Education, 35(5), 713.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562911411089
Singh, J., Hansen, M. T., & Podolny, J. M. (2010). The world is not small for everyone: Inequity
in searching for knowledge in organizations. Management Science, 56(9), 1415–1438.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1201
Soyars, M. (2017). Firms’ productivity rises as women become executives. Monthly Labor
Review, 1. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/beyond-bls/pdf/firms-productivity-rises-
as-women-become-executives.pdf
Starr, C. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2016). Sandra Bem’s gender schema theory after 34 years: A
review of its reach and impact. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 76(9–10), 566.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0591-4
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009a). Annual social and economic supplement 1988–2009,
current population survey. https://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-table25-2010.pdf
112

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009b). Annual social and economic supplements, 1971–2009,
current population survey. https://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-table24-2010.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Women in the labor force: A datebook 2010 edition.
U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook2010.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). The economics daily, women’s earnings and
employment by industry, 2009. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110216.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Occupational outlook handbook, top executives.
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm
van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Slaying the seven-headed dragon: The quest for
gender change in academia. Gender, Work, and Organization, 19(1), 71–92.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00566.x
Velez, B. L., Cox, R., Polihronakis, C. J., & Moradi, B. (2018). Discrimination, work outcomes,
and mental health among women of color: The protective role of womanist attitudes.
Journal of Counseling Psychology; J Couns Psychol, 65(2), 178–193.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000274

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Double jeopardy: the influence of prevalent race and gender bias on women of color executive leadership promotions

PDF

Women in information technology senior leadership: incremental progress and continuing challenges

PDF

We sant you! Kind of: Exploring the experiences of women pastors/leaders in Christian churches

PDF

Building the leadership capacity of women in K-12 education: successful strategies that create the next generation of women school and district leaders

PDF

Women of color senior leaders: pathways to increasing representation in higher education

PDF

Job satisfaction and retention of women clergy

PDF

Negotiation strategies for women impacting the expanding gender earnings gap at midlife

PDF

An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Minding the gender gap: self-efficacy and women senior leadership roles in banking

PDF

Barriers to gender equity in K-12 educational leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Enduring in silence: understanding the intersecting challenges of women living with multiple sclerosis in the workplace

PDF

Women Chief Information Officers (CIOs): how did they make it?

PDF

Factors and forces of impact: teaching students with disabilities in Mexican universities

Asset Metadata

Creator Whitmore, Quendrida (author)

Core Title Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 09/08/2021

Defense Date 08/25/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag C-suite male leaders,gender bias,inclusive leadership,men's power in leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture,retail,women in leadership,women in retail

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ott, Maria (committee chair), Keller Muraszewski, Alison (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member)

Creator Email Quendrida@me.com,qwhtimor@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15909377

Unique identifier UC15909377

Legacy Identifier etd-WhitmoreQu-10051

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Whitmore, Quendrida

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu