University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leading as outsiders within the C-suite: a phenomenological study of Black women C-suite executives’ perspectives on White allyship in corporate America

(USC Thesis Other)

Leading as outsiders within the C-suite: a phenomenological study of Black women C-suite executives’ perspectives on White allyship in corporate America

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Leading As Outsiders Within the C-suite: A Phenomenological Study of Black Women Csuite Executives’ Perspectives on White Allyship in Corporate America
Jalaima Nichols
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
May 2024

© Copyright by Jalaima Nichols 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jalaima Nichols certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Briana Hinga
Erika Taylor Page
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological research was to center the voices of Black
women C-suite executives (BWCEs) in Fortune 500 and other for-profit companies to amplify
BWCEs’ lived career experiences of underrepresentation and perspectives on White allyship in
C-suite positions in corporate America. Additionally, this study addressed how BWCEs draw on
their intersectionality, self-efficacy, and career networking skills with White allies in Whitedominated corporate spaces to ascend to and sustain their C-suite positions. This research
leveraged Black feminist thought, social cognitive theory, and Granovetter’s theory of social
networking to examine how BWCEs define allyship and how they assess the potential of White
allyship to improve or hinder their representation in C-suite positions. Twenty-five participants
who self-identified as Black (or African American) women and who were current or former Csuite executives in predominantly White C-suites in Fortune 500 or Fortune 500-type (i.e., forprofit) companies were interviewed regarding their experiences with and perspectives of White
allyship up to and throughout their C-suite journeys. The data sources were interview transcripts
and researcher notes. Research findings advance corporate America’s understanding of BWCEs’
experiences of White allyship and raise awareness of Black women’s challenges in pursuing and
sustaining C-suite positions in Fortune 500 companies. The study recommendations empower
Black women and their current or would-be White allies, and inform corporations on leveraging
White allyship as a critical and transformational leadership strategy that creates C-suite equity
for Black women and, ultimately, other marginalized individuals in corporate America.
Keywords: agency, allyship, Black feminist thought, Black women executives, C-suite,
Fortune 500, intersectionality, lack of representation, networking, self-efficacy, White allyship

v
Dedication
To my heavenly Father, who is my Lord and Savior. Thank you, God, for being my constant
source of strength and blessing me with the opportunity to pursue and earn my EdD. I could not
have achieved this accomplishment without faith in you, perseverance, and dedication to my
vision. God, you are so good and always on time! All things are possible through you!
To my loving husband, Kevin L. Nichols. Thank you for being my steadfast partner in life, my
best friend, my confidant, and my biggest cheerleader. From Day 1 of my EdD journey, you told
me to bet on myself and keep my head held high. Thank you for praying with me daily, believing
in me, keeping me motivated, and celebrating each milestone with me. Thanks also for being my
in-house editor and personal chef and ensuring I exercised regularly and stayed mentally
balanced. I love you with all my heart, and thank God for blessing me with you.
To my phenomenal parents, Gwendolyn and Ronald Graham. Without you, I would not be me.
Without you, I would not know the unconditional love of family, the power of prayer, and the
value of education. I thank you from the depths of my heart for sacrificing everything you have
to ensure that I had the upbringing, discipline, and self-confidence to afford me to attain a
doctorate and live a life of purpose. You are the reason I aspire for greatness. You are my
inspiration. I pray that I have made you proud and will continue to do so in the future.
To all Black women C-suite executives and those aspiring to be leaders. Thank you for your
excellence, courage, and resilience. Like many of you, I have utilized my God-given talents to
deliver top performance, yet was told that I was not enough, that I was an ‘outsider within.’ I
pray that this work offers you and other Black women in corporate America validation,
empowerment, and unapologetic pride. May this work truly amplify your voices and show the
world the transcendent power and exemplary leadership of Black women everywhere.

vi
Acknowledgements
When I started this EdD journey three years ago at the University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education, I could only dream about the incredibly positive impact and lifelong relationships it would bring to my life. I am immensely grateful that that dream is a reality.
This successful journey would not have been possible without the extraordinary guidance and
staunch support of my Dissertation Committee Chair, Dr. Patricia Tobey, and committee
members, Dr. Briana Hinga and Dr. Erika Taylor Page. Thank you for investing in me by sharing
your wisdom, coaching, and constant encouragement. You have made me a better scholarpractitioner, collaborator, and champion for equity and social justice.
I sincerely thank my academic support team, including my Organizational Change and
Leadership (OCL) professors. I feel blessed to have had the most brilliant and genuinely
dedicated individuals help me navigate what has been the most challenging yet rewarding
academic experience of my life. I express special thanks to Dr. Richard Grad, who inspires me to
ascend to higher heights, achieve greatness beyond belief, and challenge the status quo. I also
give special thanks to Dr. Ayesha Madni, who selflessly spent several months outside the
classroom to guide my inquiry skills and cheer me along each step of my dissertation process.
Additionally, I thank my OCL success specialist, Reginald Ryder, for his tireless support and
advice that kept me upbeat and finding joy and laughter throughout this journey. I truly
appreciate your commitment to ensuring my success from orientation to graduation.
To my OCL Cohort 22 classmates, who have become lifelong friends. Thank you for
uplifting me as we collaborated and overcame obstacles of the EdD journey. It has been a
privilege to know each of you and learn and grow with you. Let’s continue to Fight On!

vii
I am beyond grateful to my family and friends for their constant prayers and nurturing. So
many of you have supported me. I wish I could name all of you. However, please know that I
truly appreciate each of you for every time you checked on me and expressed your confidence in
my ability to navigate and successfully complete my EdD journey.
I thank my sister, Dr. Tabia Richardson, who counsels and motivates me to be my
authentic self. Thank you for being integral to the fulfillment of my EdD journey. You have
always been my role model and the epitome of professional and academic excellence. Your
unconditional, sisterly love and support have been and continue to mean the world to me.
I am thankful to my amazing sorority sisters, Dr. Janine Mixon, Dr. Marcie Hodge, Dr.
Larissa Estes, and Dr. Andria Johnson, who keep me grounded, inspired, and assured that I can
accomplish anything. Whenever I needed your help along this journey, you always showed up
for me without hesitation and with just the right words to keep me focused on my goals.
I also express heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Donna Ghalambor, Dr. Jennifer Rooney, Dr.
Michelle Branner, Dr. Kristy Sherrod, and Dave Ngyuen. Thank you for generously offering me
innumerable hours of advice, mentorship, reflection, and discernment along my EdD journey. I
am forever thankful for your kindness, generosity, and commitment to my overall well-being,
which has left a lasting impression on my life. I promise to support others as you support me.
Last but not least, a huge thank you to the 25 phenomenal participants of my research
study. This dissertation would not have been possible without your willingness to generously
offer your time and vulnerably share your incredible career journeys. I am honored to convey
your stories and enlightened and inspired by your expertise, grit, and kind spirits. Thank you for
uplifting me and being committed to lifting others as you have climbed. I know that your voices
will resonate profoundly in the minds and hearts of all who read this dissertation.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions...................................................................3
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................6
Definitions............................................................................................................................7
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................12
History and Significance of BWCEs in Corporate America .............................................12
Intersectionality of BWCEs...............................................................................................23
The Significance of White Allyship of BWCEs................................................................32
BWCE Challenges With White Allyship...........................................................................41
Strategies for Managing White Allyship ...........................................................................51
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................54
Summary............................................................................................................................58
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................60
Research Questions............................................................................................................60
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................60
Research Setting.................................................................................................................63

ix
The Researcher...................................................................................................................63
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................65
Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................70
Credibility and Trustworthiness.........................................................................................71
Ethics..................................................................................................................................72
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................73
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................75
Participants.........................................................................................................................76
Qualitative Findings Overview..........................................................................................84
Findings of Research Question 1 .......................................................................................86
Findings of Research Question 2 .....................................................................................101
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................135
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations........................................................................136
Summary of Findings.......................................................................................................137
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................145
Implementation of Recommendations.............................................................................155
Recommendations for Future Research...........................................................................163
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................165
References....................................................................................................................................166
Appendix A: Interview Protocol..................................................................................................189
Research Questions..........................................................................................................189
Introduction to the Interview ...........................................................................................189
Confidentiality .................................................................................................................190
Conclusion to the Interview.............................................................................................195
Appendix B: University of Southern California Information Sheet ............................................196

x
Appendix C: Recruitment Email..................................................................................................198
Appendix D: A Priori Coding Table............................................................................................201

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 62
Table 2: Participant Demographics 77
Table 3: Research Questions and Findings 85
Table 4: BWCEs’ Positive Experiences of White Allyship 90
Table 5: BWCEs’ Barriers to White Allyship 122
Table 6: Recommendations for BWCEs, White Allies, and Organizations in Corporate
America 146
Table 7: Implementation of the ADKAR Change Model: Sequences and Recommendations 162
Table A1: Interview Protocol 192
Appendix D: A Priori Coding Table 201

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Representation of Black Women and White Men in VP Roles and C-suite Positions by
Percentage 16
Figure 2: Racial and Ethnic Demographics of C-suite Leader and Functional Senior Leadership
Roles in the S&P 100 Compared to U.S. Workforce Benchmarks 19
Figure 3: Granovetter’s Theory of Social Networking: The Strength of Weak Ties 39
Figure 4: Perceived Self-Efficacy and the Four Classes of Psychological Processes 56
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework for SCT in the Self-Efficacy and Social Networking of BWCEs
Within Obstacles and Opportunities of White Allyship 58
Figure 6: BWCE Participant Sector Backgrounds 82
Figure 7: BWCE Participant C-suite Officer Positions 83
Figure 8: BWCE Participant Years of Leadership Experience in Corporate America 84
Figure 9: Participant Voices: Advice for Black Women Regarding White Allyship in Corporate
America 132
Figure 10: The ADKAR Change Model 156

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Black women’s systemic underrepresentation in C-suite positions in corporate America is
an equity problem that remains essentially unchanged (Beckwith et al., 2016; Carter & Sisco,
2022; Cook & Glass, 2014; D. R. Davis, 2016). Despite decades of U.S. civil rights legislation,
the feminist movement, affirmative action, and the proliferation of diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) goals in U.S. corporations, research shows that progress has not been made in
securing Black women’s place in the C-suite (Beckwith et al., 2016; Bell Smith & Nkomo, 2022;
Cook & Glass, 2014; S. B. Smith, 2021). Since 1955, 1,800 CEOs have run Fortune 500
companies, yet only three have been Black women (Fairchild, 2021; S. B. Smith, 2021; Wahba,
2021). Considering all C-suite leaders in corporate America today, 21% are women, and just
1.4% are Black women (Carter & Sisco, 2022; Sims & Carter, 2019). These statistics are low
despite Black women accounting for 14% of the U.S. female population, representing the highest
labor force participation of all U.S. women, having the highest rates of degree achievement
among people of color, and being the fastest-growing group of entrepreneurs in the United States
(Sims & Carter, 2019; U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). While White allyship can present a solution
to the C-suite equity disparity, researchers note that it can simultaneously exacerbate the problem
(Ayyala & Coley, 2022; Hekman et al., 2017). In its most authentic forms, the power and
privilege of White allyship is a career resource that Black women can strategically leverage to
increase their representation in corporate America’s C-suites (Bohonos & Sisco, 2021; Brown &
Ostrove, 2013; Ely & Thomas, 2020; Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019; Thomas, 2019).
Context and Background of the Problem
Literature discussing executive leadership experiences on topics of race, gender, and
class is abundant, but research devoted to the intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) of race and

2
gender of Black women executives’ experiences is sparse (Beckwith et al., 2016; Cook & Glass,
2014; Sims & Carter, 2019). Few studies have addressed how Black women’s necessity to
combat workplace oppression and forcibly adapt in White-dominated organizations informs their
promotability and permanence in executive leadership (Sims & Carter, 2019; Thomas, 2019).
This tension significantly impacts Black women’s worldviews (D. R. Davis, 2016; Sims &
Carter, 2019) and challenges their confidence in securing strong workplace allies (LeanIn.Org &
McKinsey & Company, 2021). Despite the plethora of research on mentorships and sponsorships
available to Black women executives, their utilization of White allyship remains understudied
(Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Burns & Granz, 2023; Carter & Sisco, 2022).
Although White allyship is not the sole catalyst or prescribed model to ensure Black
women executives’ representation in the C-suite, the historical prevalence of White and male
dominance in these positions warrants an examination of how White allyship can become a
transformative leadership strategy (Carter & Sisco, 2022). What remains to be known is how this
allyship can amplify Black women executives’ voices, redress inequities that inhibit their
executive progression, and reform the status quo of C-suite leadership (Erskine & Bilimoria,
2019). Given these gaps, there is a need for more research on how these women leverage White
allyship as a high-quality relationship that supports their ascension to and sustainment in C-suite
positions (Carter & Sisco, 2022; Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019; Sims & Carter, 2019).
Black women’s systemic underrepresentation in corporate America’s C-suites is rooted in
the convergence of racism, classism, and gender oppression, all characteristic of U.S. slavery
(Collins, 2002). Research shows that throughout history, the relationship between Black women
and White people has been controversial (Beckwith et al., 2016; Scaramuzzo et al., 2021). Since
the first enslaved African women were brought to America as chattel in 1619, slavery has

3
contributed to the creation of Whiteness and a power system that deprives Blacks of human
rights (DuBois, 2013). Black women arguably suffered the most severe consequences of slavery,
given their subordinance to White men, White women, and Black men (Collins, 2002). Slavery
resultantly contributed to Black women’s struggle with the dual influences of anti-Blackness and
anti-female stereotypes on how Black women are perceived as hirable, successful, retainable,
and promotable in their work environments (Beckwith et al., 2016; Scaramuzzo et al., 2021).
Slavery gave birth to the racist concept of Black female leaders as controlling images of
Mammy, Jezebel, Sapphire, and Aunt Jemima—all harsh reminders then and now of White
supremacists’ objectification of Black women (Beckwith et al., 2016; Collins, 2002; Scaramuzzo
et al., 2021). Added to these facts is the concept of borrowed power—the notion that Black
women’s authority is subverted and more symbolic than actual (Allen & Lewis, 2016)—plus the
reality that White allyship can be offered or perceived as White saviorism (Karnaze et al., 2023;
M. Williams & Sharif, 2021). Furthermore, Black women are often entangled in a surveillance
system of permissions and exclusions that pays lip service to diversity efforts (Collins, 2002).
They are subsequently rendered unworthy guests or strangers in corporate America’s White gaze
(Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019; LeanIn.Org & McKinsey & Company, 2021), struggling to answer
the question, “How do I live free in this Black [female] body?” (Coates, 2015, p. 12) while
acknowledging the potential value of White allyship (Brown & Ostrove, 2013; Hekman et al.,
2017; Johnson & Pietri, 2022).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of Black women C-suite
executives (BWCEs) on the role of White allyship in their ascension to and sustainment in their
positions in corporate America. It is important to note that the usage of the acronym BWCE(s) is

4
solely for the purpose of condensing the written reference of Black women C-suite executives in
this dissertation. This acronym should not be interpreted literally or figuratively as a
minimization or diminishment of this study population’s intersectionality, power, influence, or
any other aspects of their identity.
This study aimed to amplify these women’s voices and lived experiences by examining
how they define White allyship, leverage it along their careers, and assess its potential to
improve or hinder Black women’s representation in C-suite positions. Two research questions
guided this study:
1. How do BWCEs assess White allyship as a resource through their advancement to
and sustainment in C-suite positions?
2. How does White allyship influence BWCEs’ self-efficacy in navigating career
networks to advance to or sustain C-suite positions?
Importance of the Study
The systemic underrepresentation of Black women in C-suite positions in corporate
America is an important problem to solve for various reasons. Compared to their Black male and
White female counterparts, Black women executives disproportionately experience phenomena
that hinder their ascension to C-suite positions. They uniquely endure gendered racism, a triple
burden, the concrete ceiling, the glass cliff, tokenism, stereotype threat, and the invisible labor of
DEI work that falls outside their job description and, often, their pay grade (Beckwith et al.,
2016; Gamst et al., 2020; Hall et al., 2012; Holder et al., 2015; LeanIn.Org & McKinsey &
Company, 2020, 2021, 2022). As a result, Black women who pursue or hold C-suite positions are
more likely than other corporate employees to experience adverse mental and physical health
outcomes, isolation, and income gaps (Chou et al., 2012; Thomas Tobin et al., 2020).

5
Furthermore, these women grapple with stark discrepancies in their perceptions of White
allyship versus those of their alleged White allies. Data from The State of Black Women in
Corporate America, the most extensive U.S. study on the experiences of women of color at
work, indicated that over 80% of White men and women in corporate workplaces consider
themselves allies to colleagues of color compared to only 26% of Black women who believe they
have strong allies in their workplaces (LeanIn.Org & McKinsey & Company, 2021). Similarly,
data from the parent study entitled Women in the Workplace (LeanIn.Org & McKinsey &
Company, 2021) reveals an allyship gap—specifically, the disparity in the percentage of White
employees who say they are allies (77%) and the percentage of White employees who
consistently act on behalf of women of color (10% to 39%).
Examining this problem and the role of White allyship has critical implications for
BWCEs and U.S. corporations and their employees (Bohonos & Sisco, 2021). From a beneficial
standpoint, organizations can increase their effectiveness when corporate leaders—
predominantly White and potentially allies—embrace the moral case for DEI and approach DEI
with a data-driven, learning-and-effectiveness, transformative paradigm that increases diversity
in all levels of organizations (Roberts & Mayo, 2019). This so-called business case for diversity
may be even more promising with a few significant modifications. Specifically, by leveraging
empirically-based diversity solutions, harnessing the power of diversity by reshaping corporate
power structures, including the C-suite, and embracing a vision of success that goes beyond
maximizing shareholder returns to ensuring underrepresented groups feel respected and valued,
corporate leaders can make their workplaces equitable and psychologically safe for Black
women and, effectively, all marginalized employees (Ely & Thomas, 2020; LeanIn.Org &
McKinsey & Company, 2021).

6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Black feminist thought (BFT) and Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) theory of social
networking guided this study. Black feminist thought centers the lived experiences of Black
women who are marginalized due to the intersection of racism, sexism, and capitalism (Collins,
2002; Crenshaw, 1989). The overarching purpose of BFT is to address and situate the duality of
race and gender within larger power structures as sources of knowledge development (S. Davis
& McClain, 2023; De Sousa & Varcoe, 2021), to subsequently acknowledge Black women’s
voices and empower them and society to challenge social injustice sustained by intersecting
oppressions (Allen & Lewis, 2016; Collins, 2002). Granovetter’s (1973) theory of social
networking maintains that people are socially advantaged or disadvantaged based on the links
between themselves and their contacts or ties. This theory argues that the strength of a person’s
tie depends on the time invested in the relationship, the emotional intensity governing the
relationship, and the velocity of transmission of information in the relationship (Granovetter,
1973; Tutić & Wiese, 2015). Weak-tie networks are contacts with whom people are less likely to
be socially involved. Strong-tie networks are contacts such as close friends and family members.
Per Granovetter, weak-tie networks are more valuable than strong-tie networks for advancement
in the workforce. Based on BFT, Granovetter’s theory of social networking, and related literature
(Bandura, 2023; Beckwith et al., 2016; Mickey, 2022; Twine, 2018), this study explored the need
for BWCEs to strategically employ their self-efficacy, personal agency, social capital, and social
networks to secure and sustain C-suite positions in corporate America.
The methodological approach for this qualitative study is phenomenology via individual
interviews. This approach enables an exploration and understanding of social phenomena by
working inductively to analyze patterns and themes regarding meanings people bring to them

7
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The collection of data (stories) from
purposeful interviews with BWCEs employed in U.S. corporations, coupled with an analysis of
common themes or concepts regarding White allyship, yields an emic perspective that uniquely
exposes BWCE’s epistemology and ontology (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). A phenomenological approach with these study participants afforded a deeper
understanding of the emotional, affective, and often intense lived experiences of BWCEs as they
navigate their careers in predominately White-dominated spaces. A phenomenological approach
was well suited to unveil how these women made decisions regarding White allyship to secure
and sustain their C-suite positions.
Definitions
For this study, the terms cited and defined below are used to clarify and provide
contextual understanding.
Allyship: “An active, consistent, and ongoing practice of unlearning and re-evaluation, in
which a person in a position of privilege and power seeks to operate in solidarity with a targeted
group” (Scaramuzzo et al., 2021, p. 386). Allyship is not linear or constant, an identity, or selfdefined. It requires ongoing learning and self-reflection, trust and accountability, and recognition
by the people with whom allies seek to align themselves (Scaramuzzo et al., 2021).
Black/African American: a term that refers to an American of African ancestry
(D. R. Davis, 2016).
Black feminist thought (BFT): a critical social theory that strives to “empower African
American women within the context of social injustice sustained by intersecting oppressions”
(Collins, 2000, p. 22).

8
Chief executive officer (CEO): a corporation’s highest-level executive who serves as the
face of the company and the head of the C-suite. CEOs acquire their positions by developing
substantial leadership skills and exposure opportunities along their career pathway (Bloomenthal,
2023).
C-suite: a company’s most influential and powerful group of employees. C-suite
executives acquire their positions through finely-honed leadership skills and intensive experience
and are considered the upper echelons of a corporation’s senior executives and managers. With
the letter C, standing for “chief,” C-suite executives include positions such as CEO, chief
financial officer (CFO), chief operating officer (COO), and chief information officer
(Bloomenthal, 2023).
Corporate America: A catch-all term historically used to describe large, for-profit
organizations in the United States. In corporate America, most large corporations have a board of
directors that will appoint a CEO who oversees the company’s vision and management (Career
Employer, 2023).
Executive: a title applicable to a person who holds a senior-level position in an
organization in corporate America—such as a CEO, president, senior vice president, and vice
president—who has the authority to manage the business of an organization (D. R. Davis, 2016,
p. 6).
Fortune 500: a list of the largest 500 companies in the United States ranked by total
revenue. Fortune magazine has published the annual list of Fortune 500 companies since 1955.
Companies on the Fortune 500 list are both privately held and publicly traded. They represent
various sectors, including retail, technology, healthcare, and finance (Semczuk & Barba, 2023).

9
Granovetter’s theory of social networking argues that people can be socially
disadvantaged if they do not have weak-tie networks and lack bridges out of their strong-tie
networks of family and close friends (Granovetter, 1973). Although Granovetter (1973) does not
use the term ‘networking,’ his work shaped contemporary forms of organized networking,
maintaining that removing the average weak tie can do more damage to the transmission
possibilities than the average strong tie (Mickey, 2022; Tutić & Wiese, 2015).
Intersectionality: a term coined by Crenshaw (1989), focusing on the interlocking
dynamics of an individual’s total statuses and locations. Intersectionality calls people to
recognize the totality of a person’s identities: “race, gender, social class, nationality, sexuality,
ability status [which] shape our realities, experiences, perceptions, and treatment across social
interactions, institutions, and structures” (Allen & Lewis, 2016, p. 111).
Mentorship: the act of providing development counsel and psychosocial support to an
individual—typically referred to as a mentee—to guide the individual along a pathway to career
opportunities. Mentorship differs from sponsorship in that mentorship offers limitations in
process and impact compared to sponsorship (S. B. Smith, 2021).
Networking: an entrepreneurial career management strategy embedded in the logic of
work organizations that professional workers must maintain to ensure their employment
prosperity. In most corporate organizations, the structure and culture of networking
disproportionately limit Black women’s careers compared to men in terms of networking
approaches, attitudes about networking, and resources gained from networking (Mickey, 2022).
Self-efficacy: an individual’s belief in their own capacity to exercise personal agency and
control over completing tasks and reaching goals (Bandura, 2001).

10
Social cognitive theory (SCT) provides a tool for examining the reciprocal influences of
personal, behavioral, and social/environmental factors and how these influences are
demonstrated via self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001). Social cognitive theory can offer a critical lens
to analyze an individual’s capacity to exercise personal agency and control over the nature and
quality of their work environment and professional development (Bandura, 2001).
Sponsorship: the act of using one’s social capital to propel or accelerate the career
advancement of an individual who may be referred to as a protégé. Sponsors provide their
proteges with exposure, high visibility, and experience through access to opportunities for career
mobility or ascension that may otherwise be inaccessible to the protégé (S. B. Smith, 2021).
White allyship (of Black/African American women): Per Erskine and Bilimoria (2019),
White allyship is
A continuous, reflexive practice of proactively interrogating Whiteness from an
intersectionality framework, leveraging one’s position of power and privilege, and
courageously interrupting the status quo by engaging in prosocial behaviors that foster
growth-in-connection and have both the intention and impact of creating mutuality,
solidarity, and support of Afro-Diasporic women’s career development and leadership
advancement. (p. 321)
White saviorism: an action performed by White people claiming to help minoritized or
marginalized people. White saviorism is self-serving to White people’s desires rather than
genuine or beneficial for the community needing support (Karnaze et al., 2023).
White supremacy: the ideology that Whites are superior to other human beings based on
race and that Whites, therefore, have power over all socioeconomic and cultural systems in
institutions and overall society (Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019).

11
Organization of the Dissertation
This study consists of five chapters. Chapter One introduced the problem of practice, the
context and background of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions guiding
the study, the importance of addressing the problem of practice, an overview of the theoretical
frameworks and methodology, and definitions of key terms. Chapter Two provides a review of
the current literature related to the study, including the history of Black women in C-suite
positions in corporate America, benefits and justifications associated with increasing Black
female representation in C-suites, and Black female executives’ perceptions of and behaviors
toward White allyship. Also detailed in Chapter Two are the study’s theoretical frameworks of
BFT and Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) theory of social networking and the study’s conceptual
framework, which includes elements of SCT. Chapter Three presents the methodology for study
participant selection, interview protocols, data collection procedures, and data analysis. Chapter
Four presents the study’s results and summarizes the findings. Finally, Chapter Five provides
recommendations and implications for future research based on data analysis and the literature.

12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Two includes a comprehensive review of the literature examining the role of
White allyship in BWCEs’ career experiences. This chapter starts by exploring the history and
significance of BWCEs, the persistent problem of their underrepresentation, and their role as
vital contributors in corporate America. The second area of the literature review examines the
intersectionality of BWCEs, exploring the intersectional phenomena they face and the
complexities of their intersectional invisibility and hypervisibility in White-dominated corporate
spaces. The third area of the literature review unveils the significance of White allyship and how
BWCEs can leverage it, specifically within Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) concept of strong-tie and
weak-tie networks. It also examines the potential outcomes of White allyship.
Next, the literature discusses BWCEs’ challenges when leveraging White allyship as a
career resource: performative allyship, microaggressions, tokenization, racial stereotypes, and
biases such as the angry Black woman and Black girl magic. Lastly, the literature reveals three
strategies BWCEs can employ to manage their experiences of White allyship. The final section
focuses on Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) theory of social networking informed by BFT and in the
context of Bandura’s SCT. As conveyed via the conceptual framework, these three theoretical
frameworks collectively provide a lens to clarify and address how BWCEs assess the
opportunities and obstacles of White allyship in their ascension to and sustainment in the C-suite.
History and Significance of BWCEs in Corporate America
Black women have a persistent tradition of leadership achievement in U.S. history.
Despite their activism and significant contributions to abolitionism, women’s suffrage, the U.S.
Civil Rights Movement, and the feminist movement, Black women remain fairly unrecognized in
historical discourse and literature related to leadership (Sales et al., 2020). According to Kimmel

13
and Ferber (2018), Black women remain underprivileged and disadvantaged in business,
specifically due to discrimination and racism, which renders them marginalized and oppressed in
corporate America. Sales et al. (2020) examined how perceptions of leadership roles differ
between Black women leaders and women leaders of other ethnicities. Several themes emerged
for Black women, including being overlooked, undervalued, unappreciated, and marginalized.
Despite these findings, LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company (2022) indicated that Black
women leaders generally have more ambition than White female leaders (59% versus 49%).
However, the duality of Black women’s minority statuses of Black and female have historically
not afforded them the same opportunities for leadership advancement as their peers (Hill et al.,
2015; Rosette et al., 2016).
The Persistent Problem of BWCE Underrepresentation
The systemic underrepresentation of BWCEs is largely due to their lived experience of
“outsiders within,” a term coined by Collins (1986) to describe Black women’s stigmatized,
intersectional experience of perpetually living in two worlds—one White, the other Black and
female—but remaining marginalized and never fully valued in either. Collins (1986) asserted
that despite the marginality of Black women’s outsider within status, this status can produce
benefits, including BFT that reflects a unique standpoint on self, family, and society. However,
little research examines the benefits and costs of being an accomplished BWCE. Past and current
literature on C-suite leadership primarily reflects the perspectives of White men and women (M.
Marshall & Wingfield, 2016; Post et al., 2021; Sales et al., 2020; Solange et al., 2015).
According to Nkomo and Al Ariss (2014), this paucity of empirical evidence confirms that while
dominating the C-suites, Whites have subsequently dictated societal standards in corporate
America.

14
Liu (2021) also highlighted how the dearth of literature on BWCEs illuminates the
impact of White privilege in the C-suite and how executive leadership positions institutionalize
White privilege. For example, the literature’s focus on the experiences of White men and women
in C-suite positions disregards the equity-related accountabilities and responsibilities of those
privileged by Whiteness in the C-suite (Swan, 2017). This literature further prevents an
understanding of how BWCEs can gain full benefits of race, gender, and class historically
reserved for White men and women (Bonaparte, 2016; D. R. Davis, 2016; Lomotey, 2017;
Rosette & Livingston, 2012).
Most current research on race and diversity in management and organization studies
focuses on people of color and women of color. While this research intentionally includes Black
women, it simultaneously presents the opportunity to overlook them (Nkomo, 2021). According
to Liu (2021), the literature’s focus on people of color creates additional challenges to
understanding Black women’s experiences of ascending to and thriving in C-suite positions. Liu
(2021) asserted that diversity management and organization studies of people of color implicitly
suggest that White people are raceless, commodify racial and gender differences, deny the
existence of White power and privilege, and chase racial comfort.
Furthermore, the literature’s labeling BWCEs as people of color leads to a collective
ignorance of White privilege in C-suite positions, subsequently hindering Whites in power from
understanding their complicity in racism and genderism as related to BWCEs’ intersectionality
(Liu, 2021; Nkomo, 2021). Similarly, other researchers (Nkomo, 2021; Nkomo & Al Ariss,
2014; Sales et al., 2020) argued that the categorization of BWCEs as women of color is
important when distinguishing them from other women, but this categorization virtually erases
the lived experience of Black women as members of the two most marginalized and minoritized

15
groups in America: Blacks and women. Further, as Collins (1999, 2002) asserted, the “women of
color” and “women” categorizations draw attention away from Black women’s outsider within
identity and specific history of social injustice by erroneously implying that outsider within
status can be assumed by any non-Black women at will (Collins, 1999, 2002).
For BWCEs and Black women who aspire to ascend to C-suite positions, the literature’s
frequent omission and distortion of their history in business leadership have extreme
implications, including the inevitability of a narrow C-suite talent pipeline for Black women
(Alcorn, 2021; Colvin, 2021). According to LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company (2021),
Black women hold 1.4% of C-suite positions and 1.6% of vice president roles, compared to
White men, who comprise 68% of C-suite positions and 57% of vice president roles. Figure 1
presents a comparison of the representation of Black women and White men in executive roles
relative to their share of the U.S. population.

16
Figure 1
Representation of Black Women and White Men in VP Roles and C-suite Positions by
Percentage
Note. From The State of Black Women in Corporate America by LeanIn.Org & McKinsey &
Company, 2020. (https://leanin.org/research/state-of-black-women-in-corporate-america).
Copyright 2020 by LeanIn.Org.
White women, despite also being underrepresented, far surpass Black women in the Csuite. White women comprise 38% of the U.S. population and hold 29% of senior management
and executive roles and 4.4% of S&P 500 CEO roles (Catalyst, 2023; A. N. Smith et al., 2019).
Historical data on the increase in female CEOs reflect that BWCEs’ representation is bleak
relative to their White female peers. In 2020, 37 women held CEO positions at Fortune 500

17
companies—a record high of 7.4%. However, none of these women were Black women
(S. B. Smith, 2021). Also, before 2021, only one Black woman—Ursula Burns—had been CEO
of a Fortune 500 company in the 68-year history of the Fortune 500. Burns’ resignation in 2016
left no representation of Black female Fortune 500 CEOs for 5 years. Finally, in 2021, two Black
women, Rosalind Brewer and Thasunda Brown Duckett, earned CEO positions at Fortune 500
companies, increasing the Fortune 500’s historical total of Black female CEOs from one to three
(Alcorn, 2021; Carter & Sisco, 2022; Catalyst, 2023). However, in August 2023, Brewer
resigned from her position as CEO of Walgreens Boots Alliance, leaving Duckett, CEO of
TIAA, as the only Black female CEO in the Fortune 500 and bringing the total of Black women
CEOs in the S&P 500 to zero (Guynn, 2023).
Research by Paikeday and Qosja (2023) further emphasizes BWCEs’
underrepresentation. The authors analyzed diversity among the C-suite roles of 1,583 executives
on the leadership teams of the 100 largest companies in the S&P 500, known as the S&P 100,
and comprised of the companies that tend to be the largest and most established in the S&P 500.
The study’s objectives were to understand the state of C-suite diversity in America and find ways
to create succession plans that address diversity gaps at the C-suite level so that C-suite
leadership can truly represent America’s diversity. One of the most critical findings in Paikeday
and Qosja’s (2023) work related to BWCEs is that they cluster in functional roles that do not
lead to CEO roles. Additionally, Blacks are significantly underrepresented in COO and CFO
roles and profit and loss leadership positions that typically have access and exposure to corporate
boards and which are often the targeted talent for CEO succession plans (Paikeday & Qosja,
2023). Figure 2 presents a graph illustrating the breakdown of C-suite roles by race and ethnicity
compared to U.S. workforce benchmarks. The graph reveals Paikeday and Qosja’s (2023)

18
analysis that the lack of equity in C-suite roles is not due to a lack of talented Black people
entering the workforce. Rather, the lack of C-suite equity for Blacks is due to a lack of equity in
recruiting, developing, and promoting them. Given the disparities BWCEs experience, the data is
consistent with historical trends of their underrepresentation (Carter & Sisco, 2022; LeanIn.Org
& McKinsey & Company, 2020; U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).

19
Figure 2
Racial and Ethnic Demographics of C-suite Leader and Functional Senior Leadership Roles in
the S&P 100 Compared to U.S. Workforce Benchmarks
Note. From Employed Persons by Detailed Industry, Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity
Bureau of Labor Statistics. by Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021.
(https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm) From How to Fix the C-suite Diversity Problem by T. S.
Paikeday & N. Qosja, 2023, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
(https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/02/25/how-to-fix-the-c-suite-diversity-problem)

20
The Role of BWCEs in Corporate America
Given BWCEs’ persistent underrepresentation in corporate America, their presence and
leadership are significant. When these women enter and lead in the C-suite, they renegotiate the
meanings of social power. Thomas (2019) asserted that despite their isolation in the C-suite,
BWCEs lead in ways that could dismantle racial and gender stereotypes that yield improvements
in other marginalized and minoritized groups’ treatment in corporate America and society in
general. Combs et al. (2019) suggested that BWCEs, holding multiple personal and professional
identities, are proactive in their identity expression and work. They also intersect their identities
as outsiders within (Collins, 1986) and, in doing so, bring their whole selves to work (Combs et
al., 2019). Thomas (2019) asserted that this approach to leadership makes BWCEs some of the
most valued leaders in organizations.
Black women C-suite executives have the ability and drive to impact DEI practices and
policies, which can subsequently increase organizations’ diversity both in and out of the C-suite.
Cook and Glass (2014) analyzed corporate practices, CEO race and ethnicity, and board member
race and ethnicity in Fortune 500 companies from 2001 to 2010. Despite the researchers’
admission of the token status of Black CEOs, they asserted that minority CEOs are more likely
to have a background and experience in diversity-related policies and practices that inform Csuite priorities. As such, this research underscores the significance of appointing Black women to
C-suite positions, as they and their minority colleagues are more likely to advance DEI policies
in their organizations (Cook & Glass, 2014). However, research by Hekman et al. (2017) pointed
out that this C-suite strategy of hiring minority executives to advance diversity initiatives is
controversial and can damage non-White and female executives. The study findings reveal the
harsh reality that diversity-valuing behaviors can threaten BWCEs’ careers, as these women

21
typically face the backlash of low-performance evaluations that limit their success and tenure
(Hekman et al., 2017).
Additionally, Thomas (2019) stated that BWCEs are willing to engage in the “risky
business” of weighing the career-enhancing versus career-ending implications of their career
advancement decisions (p. 404). This risky business shows up in the form of glass cliffs:
“promotions to leadership positions in leadership organizations that are struggling, in crisis, or at
risk to fail” (Cook & Glass, 2014, p. 1081). The glass cliff can produce adverse outcomes such
as the unwanted and antagonistic savior effect by White males and the maintenance of the Csuite status quo. Research by Adams and Funk (2012) found that women executives’ propensity
for taking risks stems from the fact that in contrast to gender-related values and risk attitudes of
the general population, women executives are less traditional and security-oriented than their
male counterparts.
The research of Thomas (2019) also underscores the findings of research by Zenger and
Folkman (2012). In a survey of 7,280 leaders of progressive organizations across the world, both
public and private, government and commercial, domestic and international, women executives
were better leaders than their male peers. In 12 of 16 leadership competencies, women were
rated higher by their peers, bosses, direct reports, and other associates (Zenger & Folkman,
2012). These findings convey that although women C-suite executives may lead in precarious
positions, these women have impressive leadership skills and legitimacy (Vial et al., 2016) that
are strongly correlated to organizational success factors such as employee engagement and
retention, customer satisfaction, and profitability (Post et al., 2021; Zenger & Folkman, 2012).
In addition, BWCEs can create a path forward for aspiring Black female leaders in ways
other leaders cannot. S. B. Smith (2021) suggested that consistent with the tenets of the

22
similarity-attraction paradigm, there is a natural tendency for Black women to confer
promotability to other Black women, just as White men do for each other in the C-suite and other
levels of corporations. A year-long study by S. B. Smith (2021) sought to identify the predictors
of sponsorship and protégé success for Black women positioned in one to two levels of the CEO
or president of a U.S.-based corporation. Of the study’s 106 Black female protégé participants,
only one-third of their sponsors were White men. Most sponsors were Black (57%), and almost
one-third (29%) were women. The study did not specify the percentage of sponsors who are
BWCEs—partially due to observations that some Black women professionals are determined to
be self-sufficient in their career pursuits (Coqual.org, 2015).
However, the study revealed that the value of sponsorship is likely to be restricted unless
a person of the same race or gender occupies a senior-level or C-suite position (S. B. Smith,
2021). For this reason, the findings convey the significance of BWCEs as beacons of sponsorship
and advocacy for aspiring Black female C-suite leaders in corporate America. These findings
further underscore corporations’ necessity to secure sponsorship for Black women to propel them
into the higher echelons and C-suites of organizations (Griffeth et al., 2021; S. B. Smith, 2021).
Moreover, the findings highlight how sponsorship, in contrast to mentorship, is a phenomenon
that can be instrumental in creating a pipeline for Black women’s promotion to C-suite positions
(Griffeth et al., 2021).
Adding BWCEs to the C-suite changes how companies think. Post et al. (2021) suggested
that having diverse C-suite perspectives can yield important corporate gains. Post et al. examined
how firms change their strategic approach to innovation after appointing female executives to the
C-suite. The researchers analyzed 163 multinational companies over 13 years, specifically
reviewing appointments of male and female C-suite executives, merger and acquisition (M&A)

23
rates, and the content of letters to shareholders. The study findings revealed three distinct trends
regarding female executives’ appointments. First, with women in the C-suite, companies become
more open to change (with increases of 10%), and top management teams become less open to
risk (with a decrease of 14%). Second, companies shift from a traditionally masculine,
knowledge-buying strategy focused on M&As toward a traditionally feminine and collaborative
knowledge-building strategy focused on internal research and development. Third, the impact of
female C-suite appointments was greater when these women were well integrated into the Csuite; for example, when other women C-suite executives were present on the top management
team and when female C-suite appointees were part of a small (rather than large) group of new
appointees of men and women. These findings can be extrapolated to BWCEs.
Intersectionality of BWCEs
The scarcity of BWCEs’ representation extends beyond the C-suite, as reflected in a
dearth of literature on their intersectionality. Organizational research on women’s leadership and
the impact of gender on women’s leadership predominantly focuses on the lived experiences of
White female executives and overwhelmingly extrapolates their findings to Black women
(Darouei & Pluut, 2018; Galloway, 2022; Mavin et al., 2021; Mavin & Grandy, 2018). As a
result, these studies widen the knowledge gap regarding BWCEs and how Black women’s
experiences of executive leadership at the macro social-structural level of corporate America are
vastly different from those of White female and Black male executives due to Black women’s
multiple identities at the micro-level of intersectionality (Bowleg, 2012; Darouei & Pluut, 2018;
Rosette et al., 2016; A. N. Smith et al., 2019).
Intersectionality is rooted in BFT and takes into account historical, political, and social
contexts that address inequities and inequalities of Black women’s position in America.

24
Crenshaw (1989) coined the concept of intersectionality to purposely describe Black women’s
exclusion from White feminist discourse, which equated exclusively with White women, and
antiracist discourse, which equated with the lived experiences of Black men (Crenshaw, 1989).
Crenshaw (1989) pointed out the problematic nature of treating race and gender as mutually
exclusive categories of experience and analysis, stating that a “single-axis framework erases
Black women in the conceptualization, identification, and remediation of race and sex
discrimination by limiting inquiry to the experiences of otherwise-privileged members of the
group” (p. 140). Therefore, the intersectional perspective posits that the effects of race and
gender are not independent. Rather, they are intertwined and multiplicative and create interactive
inequities and disparities for Black women, who hold multiple subordinate identities (Crenshaw,
1989).
Seminal literature by Collins (1986, 1999) emphasizes that Black women would be
expected to have worse and different social challenges compared to White women and Black
men. For example, Collins (1999) states that the “outsider within identities are situational
identities that are attached to specific histories of social injustice—they are not a
decontextualized identity category divorced from historical social inequalities that can be
assumed by anyone at will” (p. 86). Collins (2000) also asserted that Black women developed a
collective social thought designed to oppose oppression because they have historically been
oppressed. In light of these realities, Black women’s intersectionality subjects them to
intersecting social systems of oppression, such as institutionalized racism and sexism in which
race- and gender-based hierarchies subordinate them to all Whites and all men.
Supportive of this logic is research by E. E. Bell and Nkomo (1999). Drawing on in-depth
interviews with 120 women executives (80 Black and 40 White) and a national survey that

25
included 825 Black and White women managers, this research argued that Black and White
women follow very different paths to the C-suite. E. L. J. E. Bell and Nkomo (2001) highlighted
how intersectionality produces experiences of oppression for BWCEs, such as gendered racism.
Accordingly, E. L. J. E. Bell and Nkomo (2001) reveal that this intersectionality is a superpower
that enables BWCEs to become courageous and resilient in the face of discrimination, more
vocal about injustices, and more prone to give back to the Black community and other
marginalized groups. Furthermore, unlike White women C-suite executives, BWCEs develop a
different professional identity, which shapes how they confront phenomena unique to their
intersectionality (E. L. J. E. Bell & Nkomo, 2001).
Intersectional Phenomena
In addition to the glass cliff phenomenon (Cook & Glass, 2014; Darouei & Pluut, 2018),
several other metaphors relate to the impact of BWCEs’ intersectionality on their lived
experiences. Erskine et al. (2021) described the metaphor of the glass ceiling as a “transparent
barrier that keeps [women] from rising above at a certain level in corporations” (Morrison et al.,
1987, p. 13, as cited in Erskine et al., 2021). Building on the glass ceiling phenomenon is the
black ceiling, which “comprises attitudinal and organizational barriers that constrain Black
women from rising to senior leadership” (McGirt, 2017, as cited in Erskine et al., 2021, p. 39).
Another related metaphor, the concrete ceiling: “an impenetrable barrier that women of
color confront because of their non-White status” (Davidson & Davidson, 1997, as cited in
Erskine et al., 2021, p. 39) is more challenging to break through than the glass ceiling because it
is more difficult to see through concrete than glass. Erskine et al. (2021) specified the nine
conditions constituting the concrete ceiling as
• negative, race-based stereotypes

26
• more frequent questioning of Afro-Diasporic women’s credibility and authority
• a lack of institutional support; exclusion from informal networks
• conflicted relationships with White women
• the historical legacy of slavery
• legally enforced racial segregation
• skin color discrimination
• multiple outsider status or “outsider within status;”
• their inability to access the full insider’s power that is accorded to White male and
White female executives because of their race, gender, and ethnicity. (p. 39)
Additionally, Erskine et al. (2021) referenced the metaphor of the concrete wall, as
described by E. L. J. E. Bell and Nkomo (2001), as a destructive barrier to Black women’s
advancement to senior corporate leadership. The concrete wall is entwined with gendered racism
and manifests in six ways:
• enduring daily doses of racism
• being held to a higher standard than their White colleagues
• being caught simultaneously between a visibility/invisibility vise
• being excluded from informal networks
• having their authority challenged simply because of their race
• being subjected to hollow company commitments to their advancement or improved
diversity and inclusion initiatives. (Bell & Nkomo, 2001, as cited in Erskine et al.,
2021, pp. 39–40)
Collectively, these metaphors present a significantly irreconcilable tension between BWCE’s
intersectionality, visibility, and invisibility in corporate America.

27
Intersectional Invisibility
The idea that Black women are invisible has been a theme in many seminal BFT writings
(E. L. Bell, 1992; A. Davis, 1981; hooks, 1981; King, 1988). Both invisibility and visibility are
inherently connected to power, as invisibility disadvantages marginalized groups by denying
them recognition, legitimacy, authority, and voice, all of which are exclusively reserved for
dominant groups (Settles et al., 2019). McCluney and Rabelo (2019) defined visibility as “the
degree to which an individual is fully regarded and recognized by others” (p. 2). These
researchers also noted that conditions of visibility distort how Black women are seen, evaluated,
and treated in the workplace due to hierarchies that systematically normalize Whiteness, White
privilege, and maleness in organizations. McCluney and Rabelo (2019) stated that invisibility
refers to the inability to see Black women’s intersectionality and their experiences by presuming
that their experiences are similar to those of other women and racial minorities. As outsiders
within the C-suite, BWCEs are frequently invisible due to their intersectionality. This invisibility
manifests into what Rosette et al. (2016) called “intersectional invisibility,” which is the notion
that “possessing multiple subordinate-group identities can render people ‘invisible’ relative to
those with a single [subordinate]-group identity because the former are perceived as nonprototypical members of their respective identity groups” (p. 6).
Black women C-suite executives experience intersectional invisibility due to
androcentrism (in which men tend to be the hegemonic, normative standard) and ethnocentrism
(in which Whites tend to be the hegemonic, normative standard). Black men represent the
prototypical standard of Blacks, and White women represent the prototypical standard of Whites
(A. N. Smith et al., 2019). As a result, BWCEs, despite their position in the highest-ranking tier

28
of corporations, must exert exceptional efforts to stand out and be recognized as leaders
(McCluney & Rabelo, 2019).
Research by A. N. Smith et al. (2019) argued that despite the challenges of intersectional
invisibility, Black women at senior levels experience can experience intersectional invisibility in
ways that can be advantageous. In a narrative study of Black women executives, A. N. Smith et
al. (2019) discussed the paradoxical effects of intersectional invisibility. The researchers
conveyed how intersectional invisibility can have opportunistic canceling effects, which allow
Black women executives a license for authenticity, bold autonomy, access to risks and stretch
assignments, and the potential of reinvention or credible ascents. However, the historical and
current disadvantages of intersectional invisibility reflect that Black women executives are
neither freed from group membership nor from their subordinate intersecting identities that
amplify the triple jeopardy of being Black, female, and a leader (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010;
A. N. Smith et al., 2019).
Intersectional invisibility poses multiple barriers for BWCEs who, despite their
professional status, may be perceived as inadequate leaders or unworthy of the positions they
occupy. A study conducted by Sales et al. (2020) asserted that invisibility can cause Black
women to be overlooked, undervalued, and underappreciated, creating barriers that delay, deter,
or stop their career progression. The researchers used the mixed methods approach of Q
methodology to understand different women leaders’ feelings and opinions regarding leadership
and empowerment (Sales et al., 2020). The study’s findings reflected that most of the Black
women leaders, compared to Caucasian, biracial, and Hispanic women leaders, perceived their
leadership to be threatened by the constant scrutiny of others in the workplace and others’ desire
to find errors in Black women’s leadership (Sales et al., 2020). These results are consistent with

29
findings of a seminal study on Black women’s leadership identity (Parker & ogilvie, 1996),
which asserted that Black women leaders leverage behaviors and styles that are uniquely their
own due to the duality of their race and gender and are manifestations of their socialization and
loci within the dominant White culture (Sales et al., 2020; Sims & Carter, 2019).
Sesko and Biernat (2010) conducted two studies to investigate the invisibility hypothesis:
the prediction that Black women’s contributions are less readily recalled due to their
intersectionality and subsequent invisibility relative to White women and to Black and White
men. The research was designed to examine White participants’ memory regarding Black
women’s faces and speech contributions. In Study 1, the researchers hypothesized that White
participants would be less successful in recognizing Black women’s faces than the faces of Black
and White men and White women. In Study 2, the researchers examined whether statements
spoken by Black women are less likely to be correctly identified than statements spoken by
Black men, White men, and White women. The results of Study 1 were that White participants
were relatively unable to distinguish between a Black woman they had seen before and a new
Black woman’s face. The results of Study 2 were that Black women’s contributions were
overwhelmingly confused with or misattributed to others. Although the study participants were
White undergraduate students attending predominantly White institutions, the study’s findings
apply to Black women’s experiences of intersectional invisibility (Sesko & Biernat, 2010).
Additional studies exploring varying levels of intersectional invisibility suggest that
intersectional invisibility can have traumatic and long-standing implications for Black women in
leadership roles. For example, research by Hill et al. (2015) indicated that Black women who
have the capabilities to advance to C-suite positions may choose not to advance, and when they
do advance, they have a greater likelihood of exiting the C-suite compared to their White female

30
colleagues. Hill et al. (2015) concluded that Black women’s hesitation in ascending to C-suite
roles and BWCEs’ decision to exit sooner than White female C-suite executives are due to the
duality of BWCEs’ race- and gender-related inequities in the C-suite. Similarly, via interviews
with 59 Black female executives, A. N. Smith et al. (2018) found that most had to develop
greater self-awareness to recognize when they were visible and invisible and strategically take on
risky assignments to become visible. For many Black female executives, these mental exercises
and outward behaviors resulted in feelings of violating their personal values and beliefs and
desire to exit their organizations (A. N. Smith et al., 2018).
Several other studies convey the emotional and physical repercussions of intersectional
invisibility. For example, Zumaeta (2019) emphasized the socioemotional costs of C-suite
leadership. Through in-depth interviews with C-suite executives, the researchers noted that these
leaders experience pressures that lead to feelings of loneliness inside and outside of work,
increased social distance, limited social support at work, and exhaustion related to the role.
While this study did not include BWCEs, its findings are applicable and possibly punctuated by
BWCE’s intersectional invisibility.
As related to BWCEs, Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) asserted a relationship between
Black women’s identity and stereotype threat, a phenomenon in which an individual cares about
a domain and knows that a stereotype about the group to which one is a member can explain
poor performance or lack of acceptance in the domain. Stereotype threat poses an additional
psychological threat to BWCEs’ intersectionality invisibility, which can lead to a self-reinforcing
cycle of illegitimacy (Vial et al., 2016). Additionally, Casad and Bryant (2016) found that a
leader’s stress of working against stereotype threat can spill over into domains such as health and

31
result in reduced openness to feedback from colleagues and employers, reduced domain
identification, reduced job engagement, and reduced or altered career aspirations.
Furthermore, emotional challenges with intersectionality can produce and induce
BWCEs’ competition with White women in the C-suite and with each other, such as through the
crabs in the barrel syndrome (Golden, 2002). Combs et al. (2019) highlighted these competitive
relationships’ negative impact, noting that they result in unproductive and negative intragroup
and intergroup interactions and the deterioration of BWCEs’ expressions of their
intersectionality.
Intersectional Hypervisibility
Settles et al. (2019) described hypervisibility as heightened scrutiny or increased
surveillance associated with a dominant group’s perceptions of a marginalized group’s
differences or otherness, which can be interpreted or misinterpreted as deviance. Hypervisibility
is associated with marginalized individuals’ lack of control over others’ perceptions of them.
Settles et al. (2019) also asserted that visibility, invisibility, and hypervisibility are not mutually
exclusive. For example, BWCEs can be visible in one context, invisible in another,
simultaneously hypervisible as outsiders within, and invisible with regard to their authority,
influence, and power. As such, Black female leaders must contend with the contradictory
experiences of invisibility and hypervisibility. A. N. Smith et al. (2019), examining highachieving Black executive women’s experiences and management of the effects of intersectional
invisibility, revealed that 5% of these women hit a career plateau in which their careers took a
downward turn, and they were overlooked for promotions or forced out of their organization. A
primary cause of these outcomes was hypervisibility.

32
Cook and Glass (2014) found that BWCEs placed in token and solo status roles
experience hypervisibility that produces negative ramifications. Among these are glass cliff
appointments or promotions and less freedom than White C-suite leaders. In a similar study,
Cook and Glass (2014) indicated that despite their hypervisibility as onlys, BWCEs’ tokenistic
hypervisibility often limits their ability to effect change in their organizations. For example,
while BWCEs potentially have background and experience in DEI policies and practices, they
may endure severe backlash when they push for these policies and practices. Their colleagues
may penalize or give them negative performance evaluations, for which these women might
ultimately face career suicide (Rosette et al., 2016). Furthermore, Cook and Glass (2014)
contended that token leaders often experience assimilation pressures to emulate the leadership
styles of their White C-suite colleagues. The fact that BWCEs are likely to have benefitted from
mentorship and sponsorship of Whites can exacerbate these pressures, as their mentors or
sponsors could face backlash if token BWCEs fail to meet their expectations. Collectively, these
stressors simultaneously make BWCEs hypervisible and invisible and may lead them to
interrogate the pros and cons of White allyship.
The Significance of White Allyship of BWCEs
Historically, the term “ally” has been associated with acts of solidarity and liberation.
Brown and Ostrove (2013) defined an ally as an individual who expresses little or no prejudice
and actively promotes social justice and equity. Suyemoto et al. (2021) noted that allies are
“people in privileged positions who take action to challenge or undermine the systems of
privilege from which they benefit” (p. 4). According to Ayvazian (1995), “Allied behavior is
intentional, overt, consistent activity that challenges prevailing patterns of oppression, makes
privileges that are so often invisible visible, and facilitates the empowerment of persons targeted

33
by oppression” (p. 138). As such, being an ally means making a conscious decision to choose
justice for others over comfort for oneself. However, in recent years, particularly during the
social awakenings of the Black Lives Matter and MeToo Movements, definitions of ally have
been ornamentally used (Suyemoto et al., 2021; Warren & Schwam, 2023). Many allies are
willing to do the work of reading books about dismantling systems of oppression, wearing tee
shirts that express their solidarity with marginalized people, and showing up to social justice
rallies and protests. However, as Love (2019) noted, these allies are unwilling to selflessly
sacrifice something. According to Love (2019), there is a difference between allies and coconspirators. Unlike allies, co-conspirators are accomplices to marginalized people. Coconspirators are “willing to put something on the line for somebody” and use their White
privilege to take risks so that oppressed people can gain equity (Love, 2019, 5:31).
In light of this critique, other alternatives to the term “ally” have been suggested in the
literature. For example, McKenzie (2014) recommended a shift toward language that
encapsulates individuals and organizations as “currently operating in solidarity with”
marginalized people. The rationale for this recommendation is that “ally” implies an identity, not
an action (Carlson et al., 2020). According to Utt (2013), true allyship mandates demonstrating at
least 10 essential behaviors:
• Being an ally is about listening.
• Stop thinking of ally as a noun.
• “Ally” is not a self-proclaimed identity.
• Allies do not take breaks.
• Allies educate themselves constantly.
• You cannot be an ally in isolation.

34
• Allies do not need to be in the spotlight.
• Allies focus on those who share their identity.
• When criticized or called out, allies listen, apologize, act accountably, and act
differently going forward.
• Allies never monopolize the emotional energy.
Rollock (2020) stated that there is a “dark perversity” to allyship for White people (p. 1).
Allyship, especially in the form of co-conspiratorship, is a risky and vulnerable business that
requires Whites to divest themselves from their histories, systems, structures, assumptions, and
behaviors that keep them in positions of power and privilege (Rollock, 2020). Allyship,
therefore, demands that Whites relinquish their privilege (Love, 2019), which McIntosh (1997)
described as “an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps,
guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks” (p.
291) that empowers them to overlook race at their convenience and benefit. In light of this
challenge, Suyemoto et al. (2021) contended that ally development requires an understanding of
one’s positionality that goes beyond naming identities. Both the would-be ally and the would-be
beneficiary of allyship must understand how oppressive systems shaped their lives and how they
each earn or lack benefits. Furthermore, in developing and acting as an ally, both individuals
must be open to building authentic relationships across differences to amplify the voice and
freedoms of the less privileged individual (Case, 2012; Suyemoto et al., 2021).
In the context of BWCEs’ underrepresentation in corporate America, Erskine and
Bilimoria (2019) presented a compelling case for White allyship to redress inequities in
corporate C-suites. The authors defined White allyship as

35
a continuous, reflexive practice of proactively interrogating Whiteness from an
intersectionality framework, leveraging one’s position of power and privilege, and
courageously interrupting the status quo by engaging in prosocial behaviors that foster
growth-in-connection and have both the intention and impact of creating mutuality,
solidarity, and support of Afro-Diasporic women’s career development and leadership
advancement. (p. 321)
White allyship is not the sole component or catalyst for Black women’s advancement to C-suite
positions or BWCEs’ sustainment in these roles. However, White allyship is a transformative
organizational strategy that can benefit Black women and their organizations (Cyr et al., 2021;
Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019).
White Allyship in the Workplace
There is a dearth of research on White allyship in the workplace and the
underrepresentation of Black women in leadership roles. Many studies focus on allyship in the
broader community (Nugent, 2021; Oppong, 2023; Watson-Thompson et al., 2022). However,
by omitting the word “White” from allyship, the literature fails to recognize the dynamic of
White privilege in America’s history of systemic racism and gendered racism toward BWCEs in
White-dominated C-suites. According to Ellis (2021), allyship in the workplace is distinct from
something like a DEI initiative or DEI focus group. Although DEI teams, employee resource
groups, and DEI training are important, the isms they address percolate at the individual level.
As such, allyship in the workplace requires a strategic mechanism of promoting workplace
equity through personal relationships and proactive, public actions of sponsorship and advocacy
of marginalized individuals (Ellis, 2021).

36
Much of the empirical research on workplace allyship focuses on White men and
women’s perceptions of allyship and self-identification as an ally (Ellis, 2021; Hanasono et al.,
2022; Radke et al., 2020; Ro et al., 2023; Sabat et al., 2013; Warren & Warren, 2023), allyship in
other marginalized communities (Fletcher & Marvell, 2023; Jun et al., 2023), roles and
responsibilities of allies (Cheng et al., 2019; Spanierman & Smith, 2017; Swan, 2017), and
strategies that allies can use to advance the careers of marginalized employees in the workplace
(Kendall et al., 2021; Madsen et al., 2020; Nash et al., 2021). While positively contributing to the
literature on the formation of White ally identities and the barriers associated with engaging in
allyship, little is known about what can motivate marginalized individuals such as BWCEs to
positively respond to or utilize White allyship as a career resource. The question then remains:
How can BWCEs leverage White allyship? Also, given BWCEs’ extraordinary access to social
capital and organizational resources due to their high socioeconomic status, what are the
antecedents and behavioral outcomes for their engagement in White allyship to-tu benefit their
careers?
Weak Ties Versus Strong Ties
Research conducted by Jackson (2021) focuses on interviews with 20 Black women
business owners and how they respond to limited social capital. Although the study’s target
group generally has limited social capital resources compared to BWCEs, it sheds light on how
Black women’s intersectionality impacts their engagement in social capital. Jackson (2021)
emphasized that although Black women are becoming business owners faster than their racial
and gender counterparts, their limited access to social support and social networks serves as
barriers. While friends and family are essential to their social capital, Jackson’s interviews with
the study participants highlight the significance of weak ties. The study findings reflect that these

37
women navigate social capital deficits by capitalizing on family and community involvement to
grow their businesses. By contrast, their reliance on strangers and networking in different
organizations enables these women to build their confidence in decisions related to improving
their businesses. These study outcomes directly align with Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) theory of
social networking, which maintains that weak ties (acquaintances) who are less likely to be
socially engaged with one another can provide resources and information that is not readily
accessible to an individual’s strong ties (close friends and family).
According to Granovetter (1973, 1983), weak ties are not merely trivial acquaintance ties.
Rather, weak ties have strength because they bridge two densely knit groups of friends who, in
actuality, became connected as a result of existing weak ties. As such, individuals or social
systems lacking weak ties will be fragmented and incoherent (Granovetter, 1973, 1983). New
ideas will move slowly and inefficiently, and individuals separated by minority status will be
marginalized by their difficulty in reaching “a modus vivendi” (Granovetter, 1983, p. 2) or way
of living. Additionally, Granovetter (1973, 1983) contended that removing the average weak tie
can do more damage to the probability of transmission of knowledge than the average strong tie
(Tutić & Wiese, 2015). In the context of BWCEs, Granovetter’s theory of social networking
informs these women that to sustain their C-suite positions and ascend in their career trajectories,
they must leverage weak ties, including White allies who may seem unfamiliar or unassuming to
BWCEs.
Granovetter’s (1983) theory of social networking asserts that weak ties are vital for an
individual’s integration into modern society and workforce mobility. Regardless of
socioeconomic status, financially advantaged people can benefit from weak ties in the same ways
that financially disadvantaged people can (Granovetter, 1983). An empirical study of recent job

38
changers (Granovetter, 1973) indicated that professional, technical, and managerial workers are
most likely to hear about new jobs through weak ties (27.8%) than through strong ties (16.7%).
Central to this finding is the understanding that the use of weak ties has a strong association with
acquiring or sustaining high occupational achievement jobs insofar as the weak ties connect the
job seeker or job sustainer to individuals who are well-placed and well-connected in the
organization (Granovetter, 1983). Figure 3 illustrates this conclusion, indicating that all ties in a
social network are not necessarily the same and more ties are not necessarily better. Rather, weak
ties enable people to have access to networks of strangers and, subsequently, gain knowledge and
valuable career networks that would otherwise be inaccessible with strong ties alone or in the
absence of the additive effect of weak ties (Granovetter, 1983).

39
Figure 3
Granovetter’s Theory of Social Networking: The Strength of Weak Ties
Note. From Network Science: A Reference Guide by Visible Network Labs, n.d.
(https://visiblenetworklabs.com/2022/09/30/network-science-a-reference-guide/). Copyright
2023 by Visible Learning Labs.
White Allyship as a Career Resource
Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) theory of social networking is consistent with recent
organizational research supporting the value of social networking as a significant career resource
for Black women in leadership roles. Beckwith et al. (2016) proposed that in addition to
mentoring, sponsorship and promotion through social networking could be the most important
tools Black women can use as they ascend the corporate ladder. Data from the Executive
Leadership Council’s longitudinal study, The Black Women Executives Research Initiative

40
Revisited (Carlton et al., 2016), align with this assertion. In this longitudinal study, re-interviews
with 59 Black women executives (some in the C-suite) revealed four factors required for
understanding why these women were successful or challenged between 2015 and 2017:
alignment of values, agility and repurposement, sponsorship, and relationship-building as
politics. While the latter two concepts are relevant to leveraging White allies and navigating
one’s social network, relationship-building as politics was the most frequently discussed topic by
all interviewees. More than 90% of Black female executives (e.g., vice presidents) viewed
relationship-building and networking as a success factor, compared to BWCES (mostly CEOs),
who viewed these actions as significant impediments for Black women executives. Some women
found that networking is ingratiating and exhausting as it requires tedious, methodical, and
strategic planning (Carlton et al., 2016), often with colleagues who do not look like them and do
not understand Black women’s intersectionality.
Research from Dickens and Chavez (2018) underscores the findings of Carlton et al.
(2016). Specifically, this phenomenological study examined shifting racial, gender, and class
identities among early career (recent college graduates) U.S. Black women working in
predominantly White environments. The study data reveal that Black women in corporate
settings face the challenge of vacillating between the benefits and costs of identity shifting,
which involves altering their dialect and behaviors to align with White social norms (Dickens &
Chavez, 2018). Similarly, BWCEs can face this challenge on a daily basis. Also, like the study
participants, the outcomes of BWCEs’ efforts to leverage or engage White allies (real or
perceived) can yield a multitude of negative outcomes, including managing interpersonal
rejection, assimilation to the dominant culture, inauthenticity, confronting and dismantling

41
stereotypes, the need or desire to behave as a model Black citizen, and mixed feelings toward
identity shifting (Dickens & Chavez, 2018).
Kendall et al. (2021) aimed to identify strategies White allies can employ to support
coworkers of color. The researchers sought to broaden the White allyship domain by
incorporating an openness to learning about the intersectionality of coworkers of color through a
measure of holistic support called white support for coworkers of color (WSCC). Through this
measure, employees of color rated their White coworkers’ openness to learning about racial
minorities’ lived experiences and rated how White allies demonstrate solidarity in promoting
racial justice in the workplace. The authors tested three hypotheses. The first was that employees
of color who feel supported by their White coworkers would report greater perceptions of an
inclusive environment and intent to remain in their role. The second was that WSCC would
positively predict retention of employees, and the third was that employees of color who feel
supported by their White coworkers would experience fewer microaggressions in the workplace.
Regression analyses of WSCC on the 292 study participants of color, the majority of whom were
Black and employed in education and healthcare, revealed that the first and second hypotheses
were supported. The third hypothesis was not supported. These results suggest that racial
minorities’ feelings of inclusion and intentions to stay in their roles at their organizations are
important dimensions of WSCC. While true, these data, like other data in the domain of White
allyship, cannot necessarily be extrapolated to White allyship of BWCEs.
BWCE Challenges With White Allyship
According to Levine-Rasky and Ghaffar-Siddiqui (2020), implementing antiracist
behaviors requires representation. Given that White allyship means a transfer of power, a
simplistic relationship does not exist between the presence of marginalized individuals in White-

42
dominated spaces and robust antiracist and anti-sexist practices like White allyship. The U.S.
Great Awokening on race matters in 2019 accentuated this reality, as did the murder of Geroge
Floyd and countless other unarmed Black U.S. citizens in the years that followed and ongoing
civil and political unrest during a global pandemic (Levine-Rasky & Ghaffar-Siddiqui, 2020).
Research shows that a major outcome and challenge associated with all these events is White
allyship (Kutlaca & Radke, 2023; Levine-Rasky & Ghaffar-Siddiqui, 2020; Reedus, 2020; Yuan,
2020). The resultant significant increase in White allyship entailed that those who potentially
receive or benefit from it can simultaneously be challenged by it.
Reedus (2020) highlighted that a contributor to this issue is that ostensible allies do not
necessarily consider marginalized individuals to be part of their social group. Reedus (2020)
states that White disengagement with White allyship allows White people to align with racial
minorities, asking, “What do you need me to do?” However, true allyship demands that White
people walk with racial minorities, proclaiming, “This is what I’m going to do!” (Reedus, 2020,
p. 158). BWCEs who may be on the receiving end of White allyship grapple with deciphering
whether White allyship is egalitarian. When White allies are overly vocal or apathetically silent
in the face of BWCEs’ experience of inequities, BWCEs must resolve how to effectively address
these challenges.
Performative Allyship
Erskine and Bilimoria (2019) defined performative allyship, or “empty activism,” as
actions in which “well-meaning people with power and privilege show interest in becoming an
ally but do not engage in the ongoing emotional labor, self-reflection, continuous education,
courage, commitment, and exchange of power in true allyship” (p. 329). Performative allies
typically self-identify as allies, seek validation as rewards, and are unwilling to sacrifice their

43
personal or professional capital, particularly if they do not benefit from their actions. (Erskine &
Bilimoria, 2019; Reedus, 2020). Because their activism is superficial, performative allies are the
opposites of co-conspirators (Love, 2019).
Kutlaca and Radke (2023) noted that despite performative allyship’s growing popularity,
little is known about it because it is an understudied area of research. However, current research
(Carlson et al., 2020; Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019; Kutlaca & Radke, 2023) indicated that because
this form of allyship is unauthentic and transitory, it can have long-standing and negative
implications for out-group and disadvantaged groups. Kutlaca and Radke (2023) asserted that
performative allyship can negatively affect the well-being of marginalized groups.
Performative allyship can be emotionally taxing as it waters down the goals of social
movements and distracts from actions that facilitate much-needed equity and structural change.
Yuan (2020) stated that performative allyship is uniquely damaging because it can go beyond the
individual level to the organizational level. For example, following the murder of Geroge Floyd
and the emergence of Black Lives Matter in 2020, many organizations started to speak out
against racial injustice for the first time, posting Black square on Instagram. For such companies’
Black employees, these actions were optics of allyship (i.e., performative allyship). Through
broad media gestures, they continued to enable it in their workplaces, only to continuously harm
their Black employees emotionally (Yuan, 2020).
Erskine and Bilimoria (2019) highlighted that performative allyship of Black women can
take two forms. One form is benevolent sexism, which involves a process wherein Black women
are appointed to roles that appear attractive or rewarding (e.g., glass cliffs and stretch
assignments) yet lead to detrimental career outcomes such as mental health problems and job
termination. The second form of performative allyship is White Knighting. Also referred to as

44
White saviorism (A. N. Smith et al., 2019), this type of performative allyship manifests as
paternalistic allyship that upholds White supremacy and uplifts Whites as kind servants who
come to the aid or rescue of less fortunate Black women in the workplace. The damage that
White Knighting renders among Black women is feelings of inadequacy and suspicions about the
motives of would-be allies (Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019).
Microaggressions
Black women C-suite executives face continuous discrimination in their lived
experiences in the C-suite and other levels of their organizations. This discrimination can take
the form of covert racism, also known as microaggressions. C. Sue et al. (2007) described
microaggressions as “Brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental
indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or
negative racial slights and insults toward people of color” (p. 271). First coined by Pierce in
1970, the term “microaggressions” can manifest as put-downs, subtle insults or snubs, dismissive
looks, gestures, and tones intentionally executed to overlook and devalue people of
underrepresented races and genders (C. Sue et al., 2007; M. T. Williams et al., 2021). C. Sue et
al. (2007) articulated that microaggressions can be so automatic and pervasive in the workplace
that they are often considered commonplace and glossed over as innocent workplace norms. In
the business world, microaggressions create microinequities (C. Sue et al., 2007). According to
LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company (2020), Black women in corporate America experience a
wider range of microaggressions than White women, Latinas, Asian women, and all men due to
their workplace experiences of racism and sexism. Compared to all of these marginalized groups,
Black women have the highest percentages of having their competence questioned and being

45
disrespected by having their judgment questioned in their areas of expertise or being mistaken
for someone at a lower level in the organization (LeanIn.Org & McKinsey & Company, 2020).
Microaggressions can take several forms (C. Sue et al., 2007). One form is the
microassault, which “is an explicit racial derogation characterized by a verbal or nonverbal
attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful
discriminatory actions” (p. 274). Microassualts are often conscious and deliberate and generally
expressed in limited, private (micro) situations that empower the perpetrators with a degree of
anonymity. Typically old-fashioned, an example of a microassault is calling a Black woman
“colored” or refusing to serve her before serving a White patron (C. Sue et al., 2007).
A second form of microaggressions is microinsults. Like microassaults, microinsults are
often conscious. They are characterized by subtle, rude, and insensitive communications,
conveying an intention of demeaning an individual’s race or heritage (C. Sue et al., 2007). For
example, when a person asks a BWCE, “How did you get your position?” Microinsults can also
be nonverbal. For example, when a White person avoids making eye contact or turning away
from a Black woman during a conversation (C. Sue et al., 2007).
A third form of microaggression is microinvalidation, which C. Sue et al. (2007) defined
as often conscious, “verbal comments or behaviors that exclude, negate, or nullify the
psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color?” (p. 274). An
example of microinvalidation is when a Black woman is told, “I do not see color” or “We are all
human beings.” These statements negate the value of a Black woman’s racial heritage and erase
the significance of her intersectionality.
Lewis et al. (2013) and Martins et al. (2020) specified that Black women endure a form
of microaggressions called gendered racial microaggressions. These types of microaggressions

46
are rooted in the simultaneous experiences of racism and sexism and based on the constructed
ideologies and stereotypes of Black womanhood (Lewis et al., 2013). Martins et al. (2020)
defined gendered racial microaggressions as “everyday expressions and exchanges, regardless of
intention, that denigrate individuals based on their intersecting gender and racial identities” (p.
54). As such, gendered racial microaggressions can be categorized as microassaults,
microinsults, and microinvalidation. In a study involving 17 Black women undergraduate,
graduate, and professional students, Lewis et al. (2013) found that these women used a variety of
coping strategies, depending on contextual factors, to deal with gendered racial
microaggressions. These strategies were active strategies (cognitive and behavioral efforts to
deal with the situation), seeking social support (from friends, family, and faith), and avoidance
strategies (not doing anything to resolve the situation).
Similarly, Martins et al. (2020) found in a study of 76 women who were administered the
Gendered Racial Microaggression Scale, Goldberg General Health Questionnaire, Group
Identification Scale, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale that the study participants’ high frequency
of gendered racial microaggressions predicted worse levels of mental health and self-esteem. An
additional study by Nixon (2017) indicated that women of color serving in university chief
diversity officer roles expressed similar reactions to microaggressions in the workplace. Despite
these women’s status and remit of executing DEI policies and practices at their organizations,
their professional statutes did not exempt them from gendered racial microaggression (Nixon,
2017).
A fourth form of microaggressions is environmental microaggressions. C. Sue et al.
(2007) specified that these types of microaggressions occur at the macro-level as “racial assaults,
insults, and invalidations which are manifested on systemic and environmental levels” (p. 278).

47
Empirical research conducted by Holder et al. (2015) shows that workplace cultures often embed
environmental microaggressions. The researchers examined the experiences of racial
microaggressions in the workplace and coping strategies of Black women managers in corporate
American positions (Holder et al., 2015). The researchers noted that the study group’s
organizations exhibited environmental microaggressions based on the lack of
underrepresentation of Black women and other minorities in senior-level corporate positions,
their organizations’ lack of commitment to DEI in its brand and strategy, and the attribution of
second-class status to ethnic markets and products. Furthermore, the interviews with 10 Black
senior-level corporate professionals revealed three themes about the intermediary process
between experiencing racial microaggressions and using coping strategies—specifically,
perceptions, reactions, and consequences and impact of the racial microaggressions experienced.
Moreover, a notable research finding was environmental microaggression of ghettoization of
Black employees. The organizations tracked and hired Black employees for certain roles in
ethnic brands and support functions in less desirable locations (Holder et al., 2015).
Daily experiences of the various types of microaggressions require Black women in
positions of executive leadership to continually decipher how to cope and become resilient.
Research on coping and resilience suggests that these women may seek various forms of social,
psychological, and spiritual support in reaction to microaggressions (Holder et al., 2015; Lewis
et al., 2013; Nixon, 2017). However, D. W. Sue et al. (2019) suggested that microaggressions
should not fall entirely on the shoulders of their targets. The authors recommended that White
male workplace allies, who dominate leadership spaces in the upper echelons of corporate
America, proactively support Black women and those who work in C-suite positions (D. W. Sue
et al., 2019).

48
Tokenization
A central finding of Holder et al.’s (2015) research was that organizations tokenized the
10 Black female senior-level corporate professionals in the study. This tokenization emerged in
their organizations’ efforts to showcase a handful of successful Black and other minority
employees to illustrate its commitment to diversity. Despite these actions of alleged solidarity
and allyship, the participants still expressed feelings of invisibility, exclusion, and pressures of
seeming perfect to potentially counter negative perceptions and stereotypes of Black women.
While some study participants admitted that their experiences of tokenism and other racial
microaggressions made them feel stronger and tougher and enhanced their ability to face
adversity, many participants expressed emotions of guilt, embarrassment, and loss of selfconfidence. These outcomes demonstrate that despite these women’s achievements of ascending
to the highest ranks in their organizations, they were still repeatedly marginalized and limited.
Research conducted by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company (2020) further
underscores Black women’s reactions to the “only” experience of tokenization. Fifty-four
percent of Black women say they are often the onlys in their room at work. Their selection as the
token Black women in corporate workplaces leads Black women to feel heavily scrutinized. For
example, 41% of Black women in corporate America report feeling closely watched at work,
compared to 23% of all women. Also, 50% of Black women in corporate America report feeling
that their actions reflect negatively on people like them, compared to 30% of all women in
corporate America (LeanIn.Org & McKinsey & Company, 2020).
Racial Biases and Gender Stereotypes
Gender stereotypes and biases place Black women in positions of discrimination
disadvantage in the workplace. Hooks (1981) articulated,

49
Usually when people talk about the “strength” of a Black woman … they ignore the
reality that to be strong in the face of oppression is not the same as overcoming
oppression, that endurance is not to be confused with transformation. (p. 6)
This statement reflects that while strength is a positive characteristic, the concept of a
strong Black woman attributes a certain amount of bias to a Black woman’s emotional and
physical capabilities. As such, Black women frequently contend with the concept of
Superwoman, developed partially as a result of Black women’s efforts to counteract negative
stereotypes of Mammy, Jezebel, and Welfare Queen. Woods-Giscombé (2010) noted that the
stereotype of the Black woman as Superwoman is a double-edged sword that only biases society
to expect extraordinary performance from her. With obligations to manifest strength, suppress
emotions, resist vulnerability or dependence, be determined to succeed despite limited resources,
and fulfill obligations to help others, Black women become the opposite of super. As a result,
Woods-Giscombé (2010) noted that Black women who are held to expectations to implement the
Superwoman role are vulnerable to health disparities, stress, and the need for coping strategies.
Nixon (2017) found that in work environments, Black women must attempt to overcome
racial biases and gender stereotypes by overcompensating with hard work and extraordinary
optimism. For example, in a study of women of color chief diversity officers (CDOs), Nixon’s
(2017) interviews with five women of color CDOs revealed that Black women in these roles
must constantly endure the stereotypes of the angry Black woman. Also, four themes emerged:
the ways that the CDOs came into their roles and approached their mirrored how they navigated
society as marginalized “others;” their intersectionality and role identity created feelings of
isolation; stereotypes and microaggressions created tremendous stress for these women; and the

50
CDOs consistently navigated competing expectations related to their intersectionality and roles
(Nixon, 2017).
Dating to slavery, this trope has been prolific in popular media for decades and paints a
picture of Black women as loud, irascible, and irrational. Motro et al. (2022) found that
colleagues question Black women’s leadership and potential when these women outwardly
express anger at work. In a study of two experiments, Motro et al. (2022) tested participants’
perceptions of the angry Black woman stereotypes by having them watch one of eight videos
(each with three factors at play: race, gender, and employee’s emotional response), and assess
the reactions when people express anger at work. After each video, the participants answered
questions about attribution, performance evaluations, and leadership capabilities. In the first
experiment, the participants were 300 undergraduate business students. In the second
experiment, the participants were 253 adults working in various industries in the United States.
In both experiments, participants were more likely to attribute the Black female employee’s
anger to internal characteristics such as her personality. The research found that the Black female
employee, compared to the White female employee, was consistently perceived negatively, and
therefore, not all people receive equal treatment when expressing anger in the workplace (Motro
et al., 2022).
In contrast to the angry Black woman stereotype, Black women must also contend with
the concept of Black girl magic. Coined and tweeted in 2013 by CaShawn Thompson, the initial
objective of this concept was to celebrate Thompson’s perception of Black women’s ability to do
effortlessly do anything, likened to magi in fairy tales and fantasy worlds (Lamar-Becker, 2022).
This concept of #BlackGirlMagic quickly became popularized as the Black-girl-specific
alternative to #Black excellence and Black girl empowerment on overdrive. However, both terms

51
met with a combination of support and resistance. Hoover (2021) argued that Black girl magic
can evoke negative emotions of impermeability and invincibility that reinforce stereotypes of the
Superwoman and biases that Black women can and should suffer gendered racism in silence. In
corporate executive spaces where Black women are significantly underrepresented, these
stereotypes and biases can have extenuating outcomes, including mental health challenges
(Holder et al., 2015; Hoover, 2021; Nixon, 2017; Woods-Giscombé, 2010). Hoover (2021)
subsequently called on Black women and society, in general, to debunk the Black girl magic
myth with a reality that embraces self-care and rejects harmful gender stereotypes and biases of
Black women.
Strategies for Managing White Allyship
The scholarly literature on strategies Black women can leverage to effectively manage
White allyship is very limited. Given the systemic underrepresentation of Black women in Csuite positions, strategies for BWCEs are even more limited. However, some contemporary peerreviewed research took place in non-business disciplines that center Black women leaders’
experiences and provide recommendations related to their feminism, intersectionality, and need
for retention in predominantly White-dominate professions (M. Bell et al., 2023; Graham et al.,
2023; Hyman et al., 2022; Tibbetts & Parks Smith, 2023). This research is important in the
context of SCT because it reveals how Black women leaders can leverage their self-efficacy and
agency to make decisions regarding White allyship in their careers. This research also shows
how these women can optimize their motivation to invest in social capital. Further, these studies
shed light on the self-regulation that Black women leaders must develop and maintain to hold
White allies in the workplace accountable for their commitments. This section of the literature

52
review discusses recommendations from four empirical studies (M. Bell et al., 2023; Graham et
al., 2023; Hyman et al., 2022; Tibbetts & Parks Smith, 2023).
Self-Efficacy and Agency
A literature review by Tibbetts and Parks Smith (2023) highlighted the necessity of
agency in racial minority women to identify and leverage mentorship in their careers. The
researchers provided a mentorship model for Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC)
professionals’ well-being and retention in sports psychology, a field dominated by hegemonic
viewpoints and plagued with a history of intersectional oppression and marginalization. In the
review, Tibbetts and Parks Smith (2023) combined the demands of sports psychology with
research on critical race theory, feminist and womanist mentorship practices, and
intersectionality. The researchers concluded that to succeed and thrive in their professions,
BIPOC practitioners must prioritize securing mentors with the same identity as them and be
equally intentional about seeking out mentors who do not share their identities yet can provide
trusting and caring spaces and recognition of Black women’s intersectionality. These
characteristics align with the behaviors of authentic White allies (Tibbetts & Parks Smith, 2023).
Graham et al. (2023) aimed to understand the factors that influence BIPOC marine
scientists’ recruitment and retention. Using the SCT framework and Astin’s input-environmentoutput model in interviews with 47 BIPOC scientists, the researchers uncovered how institutions,
interventions, programs, and networks have successfully or unsuccessfully retained BIPOC
marine scientists and created environments that retained them. The study findings revealed that
scientists’ self-efficacy in securing intentional and effective mentorship significantly increased
their sense of belonging and science identity. Also, their self-efficacy in building professional

53
networks with mentors, colleagues, and peers and investing in cultural capital were two factors
influencing BIPOC scientists’ science identity and sense of belonging (Graham et al., 2023).
Motivation
M. Bell et al. (2023) explored the motivations of U.S. Black wine entrepreneurs in the
wine industry. Through interviews with 42 Black winemakers, the study used the push-pull
theory to uncover participants’ motivations to enter the White-dominated wine industry, the
challenges they faced, and the solutions they implemented. In the context of push-pull theory,
push factors represented forces related to negative external situational factors and a desire to
improve them. Pull factors represented forces related to positive internal factors. Study findings
revealed that the theme of racism was a predominant challenge, followed by the theme of finance
and capital. Other challenges included mental health, finding mentor support, classism, and the
lack of meaningful allyship. The researchers also concluded that the intersectionality of racism
and sexism was particularly difficult for Black women winemakers to overcome. Further, they
recommended that because self-efficacy and motivation are rooted in strong social networks and
social capital, Black winemakers can benefit from mutual informal and formal connections in the
wine industry (M. Bell et al., 2023).
Self-Regulation
Hyman et al. (2022) explored the professional experiences of women psychologists of
African descent in applied sports psychology through a Black feminist lens. Through interviews
with six participants, the researchers identified seven emergent themes: the professional is
political, speaking to participants’ connections to their marginalization within a political and
power-laden system; sense of responsibility to build on the work of their ancestors; be the
change through resilience and fortitude; vigilance with colleagues to combat the emotional and

54
cognitive toll of hypervisibility; acceptance and resistance despite scrutiny from White clients;
White allyship as a means of gaining access to the field and advancement opportunities; and
representation in the community of Black sports psychologists (Hyman et al., 2022). Each theme
is related to self-regulation, as these seven actions require the participants to self-monitor, selfinstruct, set goals, and self-reinforce (Hyman et al., 2022).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for exploring the role of White allyship in BWCEs’ ascension
to and sustainment in C-suite positions is grounded in Bandura’s (Bandura, 1989). The theory
offers a framework to examine this topic through the backdrop of BFT and the guidance of
Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) theory of social networking. Bandura (1989) developed SCT based
on the concept that learning is affected by three distinct factors: personal (which manifest
through cognitive, affective, and biological events), behavioral, and environmental. Bandura
(2018) maintained that SCT “provides an integrated theory of personality that addresses the
complexity of human self-development, adaptation, and change from an agentic perspective” (p.
1041). According to Bandura (2000), human agency has three core properties that operate
through phenomenal and functional consciousness: forethought, self-reactiveness, and selfreflection. Also, SCT distinguishes three modes of human agency that work in concert with each
other. The first is individual agency, in which desired outcomes are personally controllable. The
second is proxy agency, which relies on a broad network of people with the resources,
knowledge, and means to act on an individual’s behalf to secure desired outcomes. Third is
collective agency, which requires a group’s coordinated efforts.
Among the three modes of human agency, belief in individual efficacy (i.e., self-efficacy)
is perhaps the most focal and pervasive (Bandura, 2000). Bandura (2023) articulated three

55
reasons why self-efficacy, which he described as people’s beliefs about their capacity to exert
control over their lives, is particularly central. First, self-efficacy directly influences people’s
thoughts, actions, and emotions as they engage in activities. Second, self-efficacy reflections
influence other self-regulatory processes, such as setting aspirational goals or developing
perceptions of self-doubt or inadequacy. Third, self-efficacy guides people’s decisions on
whether to take on a particular goal or task (Bandura, 2023).
In SCT, people’s perceived self-efficacy functions as a proximal determinant of four
classes of psychological processes consequential to human achievement and well-being
(Bandura, 2023). These four processes are selection, cognitive, motivational, and affective
processes (Bandura, 2023). Figure 4 illustrates the elements of each process. Selection processes
dictate how people exert influence over the environments they encounter and the activities they
pursue, both of which can have multiple immediate and long-term effects. Cognitive processes
affect people’s thought patterns and goal setting, which may help or hinder their future efforts
and outcomes. Motivational Processes determine the amount of effort people exert in their
endeavors and their duration of perseverance in the face of obstacles. Affective processes dictate
people’s motivation and choices regarding how much stress or despondency they experience in
risky and threatening situations, which can subsequently strengthen or impair their coping
mechanisms (Bandura, 2023).

56
Figure 4
Perceived Self-Efficacy and the Four Classes of Psychological Processes
Note. From Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective on Human Nature by A. Bandura,
2023. Wiley. Copyright 2023 by Wiley.
Bandura (2023) noted that because people spend a major part of their daily lives in the
workplace, occupational pursuits are a major source of personal identity, self-evaluation, and
social connectedness. Self-efficacy, therefore, plays an integral role in individuals’ occupational
development and pursuit. In the context of White allyship as a potential career resource for
BWCEs, their self-efficacy to influence those in power in the C-suites depends on BWCEs’
beliefs in their ability to personally and collectively with White allies implement certain

57
behaviors (e.g., networking and career goal setting) and change a system (the C-suite
environment) which has historically appeared unchangeable and impenetrable by Black women.
Bandura (1997) proposed that perceiving that a system such as White-dominated C-suites
can be changed and that one can be efficacious in enacting that change requires self-efficacy
built on perseverance. Given the persistent marginalization of Black women in America since
U.S. slavery, the tenets of BFT—Black women’s self-definition, self-valuation, the
intersectionality of oppression, and the celebration of Black women’s culture (Collins, 2002)—
and the systemic underrepresentation of Black women in C-suite positions, and the power of
authentic allyship, SCT can motivate BWCEs and other Black women in corporate America to
act in ways that will remove C-suite inequities in corporate America. The conceptual framework
in Figure 5 depicts the three learning factors of Bandura’s SCT: the person as a BWCE, with the
cognitive and affective influences of BFT and self-efficacy on their ability to navigate White
allyship and sustain their representation in the C-suite; the behavior as BFT and social
networking implemented through BWCE’s self-efficacy for career goal setting and navigating
White allyship; and the environment as the historically White-dominated C-suite of corporate
America in which BWCEs leverage their self-efficacy to navigate White allyship and sustain
their representation. Double-sided arrows represent ongoing interactions. For example, there are
interactions among the SCT learning factors of person, behavior, and environment, as well as
between behavior and self-efficacy. Additionally, green and red arrows with plus and minus
signs appear between behavior and strong ties and weak ties, representing potentially positive or
negative interactions. Similarly, green and red arrows with plus and minus signs appear between
self-efficacy and White allyship obstacles and White allyship opportunities, representing the
paradoxical interactions of each on self-efficacy.

58
Figure 5
Conceptual Framework for SCT in the Self-Efficacy and Social Networking of BWCEs Within
Obstacles and Opportunities of White Allyship
Summary
This literature review provided insight into BWCEs’ challenges in ascending and
sustaining their leadership in C-suite positions. First, the literature reviewed the history and
current status of BWCEs’ representation in C-suite positions and discussed evidence regarding
their representation’s significance. Next, the literature reviewed how BWCEs’ intersectionality is
rooted in BFT and how various workplace phenomena affect that intersectionality, producing

59
detrimental challenges of invisibility and hypervisibility. Third, the literature discussed the
difference between authentic and unauthentic White allyship and how leveraging White allyship
by networking both weak and strong ties in corporate America can have significant outcomes for
BWCEs. Fourth, the literature reviewed the multitude of challenges that BWCEs may experience
with White allyship and how those challenges interact with BWCEs’ self-efficacy in making
career-related decisions. Fifth, the literature review shared some strategies for BWCEs to address
White allyship via recommendations from recent studies of the self-efficacy of Black women
leaders and professionals working in White-dominated spaces. Lastly, the literature review
discussed the conceptual framework informed by SCT. Key concepts represented included BFT,
Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) social networking, and the paradoxical nature of White allyship on
the self-efficacy of BWCEs. As BWCEs interrogate the obstacles and opportunities of White
allyship, they must leverage the power of their intersectionality and their self-efficacy to aid their
representation and sustainment in C-suite positions.

60
Chapter Three: Methodology
The methodology for this study was qualitative phenomenological research. This chapter
presents the research questions, methodology, researcher positionality, data sources, data
analysis, validity, reliability, credibility, and ethical considerations. The purpose of this study
was to explore how BWCEs’ perceptions of White allyship shape their self-efficacy to ascend to
and sustain careers in corporate C-suite positions. This study examined how BWCEs define
White allyship, how they assess the potential of White allyship to improve or hinder their career
trajectories, and how they leverage White allyship during their tenure in C-suite positions. The
following section outlines the research questions related to BWCEs’ experiences with White
allyship, emphasizing BFT and Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) theory of social networking in the
context of SCT.
Research Questions
The research questions that guide this study are as follows:
1. How do BWCEs assess White allyship as a resource through their advancement to
and sustainment in C-suite positions?
2. How does White allyship influence BWCEs’ self-efficacy in navigating career
networks to advance to or sustain C-suite positions?
Overview of Design
The research design for this study was a qualitative, inductive approach via
phenomenological inquiry. This design provided an understanding of the social phenomena of
BWCEs and their lived experiences with White allyship in corporate America, specifically in
their ascension to and sustainment in C-suite positions. Qualitative research is grounded in the
belief that people construct knowledge as they engage in and interpret activities, experiences, or

61
phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The inductive process enables the researcher to gather
detailed descriptions of participant experiences and build findings into themes, concepts,
tentative hypotheses, or theories (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Phenomenological inquiry
focuses on depicting the essence or basic underlying structure of the meaning of lived
experiences of phenomena as described by participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A qualitative,
inductive phenomenological research methodology was appropriate for this study because it
allowed me to gain insight into BWCEs’ perspectives of White allyship, which observations
cannot capture (Patton, 2002). Additionally, interviews enabled in-depth accounts of
participants’ intersectional experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This opportunity to engage in direct dialogue aligned with the purpose of this study because it
allowed for face-to-face interactions with the participants, yielding an emic perspective that
uniquely exposed their epistemology and ontology (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
This study used one-on-one, semi-structured, standardized, and open-ended interviews.
The rationale for this method was to ensure that each participant was asked the same questions or
same stimuli in the same way and the same order, with standard probes, thereby increasing the
comparability of responses and the capacity for easy data analysis (Patton, 2002) Also, this data
collection method permitted highly focused interviews and efficient use of time (Patton, 2002).
Additionally, individual-based, one-off interview research was well suited for revealing
prominent patterns of action, experience, and narrative employed among the population of focus.
Furthermore, this method helped to deal with challenges associated with participants’ concerns
about reputation and impression management, time commitment, and attentional engagement

62
(Ma et al., 2021). Table 1 shows each research question outlined according to the research
method.
Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Semi-structured interviews
How do BWCEs assess White allyship as a
resource through their advancement to and
sustainment in C-suite positions?
X
How does White allyship influence BWCEs’
self-efficacy in navigating career networks
to advance to or sustain C-suite positions?
X

63
Research Setting
This study’s research setting is the C-suites of corporate America and is related directly
to the participants, as they represent a significantly small, elite, and rare segment in C-suite
positions of for-profit corporations across the United States. This setting was selected to conduct
the study and address the research questions related to BWCEs, their perceptions of their
intersectionality, and their experiences of White allyship in the contexts of self-efficacy and
career networking in pursuit of C-suite position attainment and sustainment. The two research
questions considered the roles of BFT and White allyship on BWCE’s self-actualization and selfvaluation along their career trajectories and through their C-suite leadership journeys. The
research questions addressed how Granovetter’s Granovetter (1973, 1983) social networking
theory and SCT informed BWCEs’ self-efficacy processes related to White allyship (e.g.,
selection processes, cognitive processes, motivational processes, and affective processes) and
their achievement and sustainment of C-suite positions (Bandura, 2023).
The Researcher
As a Black woman with a long history of employment in leadership roles at Fortune 500
companies, diverse career experiences with White allyship, and a desire to ascend to a C-suite
position, I have an intimate relationship with this study. This research is relevant to several
phenomena that disproportionately affect me, other Black women executives, and our career
trajectories (Cook & Glass, 2014). This research also relates to significant social conditions
contributing to BWCEs’ systemic underrepresentation in corporate America, such as White
supremacy, White privilege, the historical climate and culture of corporate America, and lack of
access to networking and educational opportunities. My connection to Black women leaders’

64
lived experiences and the corporate setting fostered a psychologically safe and therapeutic
environment that yielded a sense of solidarity and empathy with BWCEs.
Despite the advantages of my positionality, I recognize that it also presented barriers to
this study. My understanding of this research was limited by my reflexivity, which may shape or
misconstrue my research interpretations. Also, my connectedness to some participants as former
colleagues and associates may have resulted in biases that left questions or answers uncovered
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Additionally, participants may have had concerns about my power
to share insights with others, particularly since BWCEs, being dominant and powerful business
elites, may ask me about information that has been collected from other study participants, even
though confidentiality and anonymity were made clear before the interviews (Ma et al., 2021).
Furthermore, since some BWCEs may not have necessarily been familiar with research
interviews (compared with journalistic interviews), they may have been hesitant to divulge
sensitive and private information or emotions related to the research questions.
I aimed to mitigate these challenges by maintaining the interviewees’ confidentiality and
adhering to the three Rs: respect, reciprocity, and responsibility (Wilson, 2008). When
conducting interviews, I reassured participants that I would use the data anonymously. I offered
to turn off my recording device or suspend notetaking during the interview (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I also aimed to strike a balance of trust and rapport by displaying subtle reactions of
empathy when participants expressed difficulties or frustrations, which potentially helped to
alleviate the potential for business elites’ domination of interviews (Ma et al., 2021).
Additionally, I maintained a critical distance by not behaving as a judge or therapist.
Furthermore, I offered each participant, before starting the interview, an IRB-approved list of
mental health resources for Black and Black female professionals as an aid should problems

65
surface during interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I also managed my reflexive thinking by
consistently writing notes during the research on how my personal experiences may shape my
interpretation of codes, themes, and results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Data Sources
I was the primary instrument for data collection in this qualitative study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). I collected data through one-on-one, semi-structured, standardized, open-ended
interviews and secondary sources such as resumes, LinkedIn, organizational charts, and Google
to identify and analyze participant demographic information. Ma et al. (2021) asserted that
interviews are the most important method for studying business elites. Interviews enable an
understanding of a wide range of phenomena related to the setting in which business elites
operate, their motivations, assumptions, relationships, decisions, and actions. Interviews with all
study participants took place face-to-face and virtually via the Zoom video conferencing and
recording platform provided by IT services at the University of Southern California (2022),
allowing for video and audio capture. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that transcripts are ideal
for data collection since verbatim transcription of recorded interviews provides the best database
for analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The transcription software Otter.ai generated the
interview transcripts as well as recorded and transcribed voice-to-text to pick up the voice in the
Zoom audio recording.
Empirical research related to this research topic, faculty guidance, and peer review
informed the determination of the interviews’ number, structure, and format to enhance my
interview techniques and skills. In alignment with the objectives of phenomenological research, I
conducted all of the interviews to uncover the participants’ lived experiences such that each
interview “focused on the deep, lived meanings that events have for individuals, assuming that

66
these meanings guide actions and interactions” (C. Marshall & Rossman, 2015, p. 153). Also, for
reflection, I used Zoom video conferencing and voice notes to write about their experiences of
the phenomenon and document descriptive material and reflections in a journal.
Participants
Criterion-based selection entails determining the attributes of the research participants
that are most relevant to addressing the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Accordingly, the participant inclusion criteria were
• women who identify as Black (or African American);
• current or former executives employed in a C-suite position in a Fortune 500 or
Fortune-500-type corporate (i.e., for-profit) environment; and
• current or former executives employed in a predominantly White C-suite.
The participant exclusion criteria consisted of
• individuals who do not identify as women and as Black (or African American);
• lack of current or former employment in a C-suite position in a Fortune 500 or
Fortune 500-type (i.e., for-profit) corporate environment; and
• lack of current or former C-suite employment in a predominantly White C-suite.
These criteria were appropriate because they aligned with the study purpose of exploring
the role of White allyship in the leadership development and career advancement of BWCEs in
corporate America. These criteria also aligned with the two research questions. Additionally, the
rationale for recruiting current and former BWCEs was that some participants may have recently
retired or may have exited their positions during the study’s timeframe. Furthermore, these
criteria took into consideration the fact that organizations regularly make C-suite leadership team
changes.

67
The sampling strategy for this study was nonprobability sampling because it is best for
qualitative studies (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The nonprobabilistic sampling strategy was
purposeful because it allowed me to select a sample from which the most information related to
the research questions could be learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The purposeful sampling of
interviewees included snowballing and leveraging my professional network. I notified BWCEs in
my network and recruited interviewees via email and phone calls explicitly based on their ability
to provide information-rich cases of their lived experiences of C-suite leadership and their
availability for interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Patton, 2002). I also asked participants to
recommend additional individuals to recruit for future interviews.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) estimated that a reasonable sample for phenomenological
research may range from three to 10 participants. Based on the recommendation of the
dissertation committee’s chairperson, this study aimed to target and recruit 15 participants. Due
to a positively overwhelming interest in the study and my desire to honor interested BWCEs’
request to tell their stories, I recruited and interviewed 25 participants. This sample was ideal, as
it accommodated BWCEs’ requests to participate and yielded data saturation of common themes
or categories of the phenomenon.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol reflected a semi-structured, standardized, and open-ended
approach. The rationale for this design was to ensure that each participant had a standard set of
questions and a consistent set of boundaries for conversation and data collection (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Also, this design allowed for an organic and fluid discussion with participants.
The questions contained in the interview protocol were purposely of a specific number,
type, and content. The interview protocol consisted of 14 questions. This total was appropriate

68
when estimating the timing required for study participants’ responses. Krueger and Casey (2009)
validated this number of questions based on specific timing considerations, the complexity and
category of questions, and the level of discussion the researcher wants relating to each question.
In developing the questions, I followed this guidance and implemented a seven-step questioning
route (Krueger & Casey, 2009) of brainstorming, phrasing the questions, sequencing the
questions, estimating time for each question, getting feedback from others (via peer review with
classmates and faculty feedback), revising the questions, and testing the questions. The resulting
questions included an opening, introduction, transitions, core questions, and ending questions
designed to determine participants’ final positions on White allyship. Each question reflected the
necessary element of congruency, “anchored in the purpose of the study and the research
questions” (Castillo-Montoya, 2016, p. 812). The interview questions also demonstrated the rule
of simplicity by eliminating excessive wording and avoiding academic jargon (e.g.,
intersectionality). These considerations aimed to allow participants to conversationally tell their
stories one layer at a time (Krueger & Casey, 2009) and express values, feelings, and knowledge
(Patton, 2002) in response to probes that were different from the research questions yet aligned
with the study purpose (Castillo-Montoya, 2016). See the interview protocol in Appendix A.
Data Collection Procedures
The logistical procedure for collecting interview data began with scheduling interviews
with 25 participants over the time frame allotted for the study. I contacted participants via email
and phone to schedule the date and time of the interviews. Appendix C presents the recruitment
email. Upon receiving confirmation, I sent a calendar invite to participants approximately 24 to
48 hours before the interview with a Zoom link and dial-in information. As Bogdan and Biklen
(2007) recommended, effective qualitative data collection requires reliable recording capabilities

69
and transcription. For this reason, I utilized Zoom transcription and Otter.AI to generate
transcripts of each interview. The transcripts were saved and password-protected, with
accessibility permissible only to me.
Before starting an interview, I followed the process outlined in the interview protocol. I
reintroduced myself to the participant and reviewed the dissertation topic and purpose of the
study. I also articulated the 60-minute interview duration and confidentiality and reassured
participants of their right to stop recording at any time, refrain from answering questions, exit the
interview at their request, and that a pseudonym would be assigned to their name to protect their
identity. Additionally, I reminded the participant of their previously received consent to record
the interview, verbally obtained that consent again, and told them that I would also take notes to
ensure that I accurately captured their words.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) shared that a second way to record interview data—in
addition to recording the audio and video—is to take notes during the interview so that
researchers can record their reactions, signal the participants of the importance of what they say,
or to pace the interview. After I received a second consent to continue recording the interview
and taking notes, I continued to record and asked the first set of interview questions. I leveraged
probing questions as appropriate. Patton (2002) suggested that probes at appropriate times
provide participants with opportunities for clarification and elaboration. They also minimized
interview effects by asking the same questions of each participant, thereby reducing the need for
interviewer judgment. Translation procedures were needed because all interviews took place in
English.

70
Data Analysis
I used a combination of methods to analyze the interview data. After collecting the
interview data from all participants, the first method of data analysis included transcribing the
recorded interviews using Otter.ai. I performed a first quality check to ensure that transcripts
were accurate and cleaned up, and I redacted personally identifiable information. A second
quality check entailed playing the recording of the interviews to ensure the accurate capture of
transcripts. Next, I conducted manual coding to manage, analyze, and visualize qualitative data.
After transcribing and uploading the interviews, I used the coding data for analysis and
interpretation.
To conduct the coding, I followed the five-step procedure Creswell and Creswell (2018)
recommended. First, I organized and prepared the data for analysis. Second, I read or looked at
all the data. Third, I started coding all the data. In this step, I leveraged Tesch’s eight steps in the
coding process (as cited in Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 196). Fourth, I generated a description
and themes. Fifth, I presented the description and themes and documented them in an Excel file.
Furthermore, I referenced direct quotes and phrases when presenting themes and results to
reduce bias in interpreting participants’ responses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Patton (2002)
noted that capturing interviewees’ actual words is essential because nothing can substitute this
data. Lastly, I assigned the codes/themes to three groups: expected codes/themes, surprising
codes/themes, and unusual codes/themes. Creswell and Creswell (2018) suggested that this step
will ensure that the qualitative findings represent diverse perspectives.
Validity and Reliability
Qualitative reliability requires that the researcher ensure the accuracy of the study’s
findings by employing certain procedures. Similarly, qualitative reliability requires a consistent

71
approach to checking for the accuracy of findings across different researchers and projects
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Qualitative studies can use multiple validity and reliability
procedures. One example of a validity procedure is my awareness of my positionality. For
example, my awareness of my positionality as a Black woman with a history of working in
Fortune 500 companies and a desire to ascend to C-suite leadership helps to mitigate bias and
regulate my reflexivity, which may hamper this study’s validity. An example of a reliability
procedure is documenting as many steps of the research procedure as possible. This action may
also include creating a detailed case study protocol and database so that others may follow and
replicate the study procedures (Yin, 2009). The next section discusses additional examples of
behaviors I engaged in to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To maximize the findings’ credibility and trustworthiness, I used the strategies of
triangulation and member checks. Through triangulation, I conducted follow-up interviews with
some participants and gained additional data to compare and cross-check data from previous
interviews. Through member checks, I solicited the participants’ feedback on preliminary or
emergent findings, thereby enabling me to identify biases and misunderstandings of the data and
reach saturation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Member checks also bolstered credibility. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) recommended respondent verification as an opportunity to solicit feedback on
the accuracy of the interview notes, also called interview transcript verification. I followed this
recommendation by sharing or discussing the interview notes with participants before finalizing
them.
To ensure alignment with the research questions and conceptual framework in the
interview protocol (see Appendix A), I linked each interview question to the research question

72
and identified key concepts addressed. I also identified the question type, such as background,
knowledge, feelings/emotions, and values/opinions (Patton, 2002). Documenting the interviews
enhanced the study’s trustworthiness or dependability, ensuring the consistency and reliability of
the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Stake (2005) stated that “qualitative researchers are guests in the private spaces of the
world. Their manners should be good and their code of ethics strict” (as cited in Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 262). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended that study subjects’ protection
from harm, the right to privacy, informed consent, and issues of deception be handled prior to the
study and resolved as they arise. As noted in the interview protocol (Appendix A), I ensured that
participation in the study was voluntary and that the confidentiality of the data and participants
was respected and maintained. I emphasized the voluntary nature of subjects’ participation by
articulating the statement of confidentiality and repeatedly stating their ability to decide not to
participate, to skip questions, or to exit the interview at any time. Also, I ensured that I gained
permission to record during interviews and store and secure the data with password-protected
encryption.
Furthermore, to protect the participants, develop trust with them, promote the integrity of
the research, and guard against impropriety that might reflect on the University of Southern
California or the participants’ organizations, I followed the 5-step process recommended by
Creswell and Creswell (2018). Specifically, prior to conducting the study, I sought approval from
the institutional review board of the University of Southern California, gained study participants’
permission to participate, and negotiated authorship for publication when necessary. At the
beginning of the study, I disclosed the purpose of the study and did not pressure participants into

73
providing their verbal consent. When collecting the data, I ensured that all participants received
the same treatment. I also avoided deceiving participants, respecting power imbalances, ensuring
they were not exploited, and not collecting harmful information. When I analyzed the data, I
avoided going native with the participants, avoided disclosing any positive results, and respected
participants’ privacy and anonymity. Lastly, when reporting, sharing, and storing the study data,
I avoided data falsification, plagiarism, and disclosure of any information that could harm
participants. Furthermore, I communicated in clear and straightforward language and provided
proof of compliance with ethical issues if requested.
Limitations and Delimitations
As this study explores the role of White allyship in BWCEs’ ascension to and
sustainment in C-suite positions in corporate America, the conceptual framework and the
qualitative methods highlight BWCEs’ intersectionality and their self-efficacy in navigating
White allyship through career networking in executive leadership spaces typically dominated by
Whites. Several limitations I could not control may have posed significant threats to data
collection. Ma et al. (2021) described four limitations unique to conducting interviews with
business elites such as BWCEs. First, business elites are subject to high demands and constraints
on their time, which create barriers to accessing them for interviews of 60 minutes duration.
Second, because business elites typically have extensive work experience and education,
including management education, they may lean toward using language laced with scientific
terminology and textbook-type answers. Consequently, some participants’ responses may not
have reflected the language of the general public or necessarily reflect the authenticity of the
participants. Third, since business elites are dominant figures in positions of power, there was
potential for a power imbalance to develop between them and me, causing me to lose control of

74
the agenda and course of the interview. Fourth, business elites are generally skilled in conducting
media interviews and are concerned with protecting their personal brands and not damaging their
reputations or organizations. As a result, participants may have been cautious about what they
said. They may have exhibited impression management, which may have hindered building trust
and rapport and collecting authentic data (Ma et al., 2021).
Some additional limitations of the study may include geographical limitations. For
example, some participants were located in time zones or countries outside of mine, which posed
difficulties in scheduling interviews. Also, given the potential for human error, there was a
possibility that I may not have consistently presented probes to all participants during interviews
or have taken thorough notes. As a result, there is a possibility for misunderstanding or
misinterpretation of participants’ words or nonverbal cues. Another limitation that may have
arisen is participants’ lack of compensation or study incentives, which may have subsequently
created barriers to some aspects of study recruitment and snowballing efforts.
As in all studies, this study had delimitations that had implications for data collection. For
example, the study’s design, objectives, and research questions were possible delimitations.
Also, restricting the inclusion criteria to employment in Fortune 500-type corporate
environments may have excluded some BWCEs who currently or have formerly worked in Csuite positions at other types of for-profit corporations. Another delimitation was conducting
interviews via Zoom instead of in person, which may have allowed for more personable
interaction and greater rapport and trust building.

75
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to uncover the perspectives of BWCEs on White allyship
to understand how BWCEs navigate White allyship as a potential bridge or barrier to C-suite
ascension and sustainment in corporate America. Using a phenomenological lens centered
around the narratives of 25 BWCEs, this study aimed to address gaps in the research on the
intersectionality of race and gender for BWCEs and BWCEs’ views on how White allyship can
enhance or exacerbate their challenges. Through a qualitative interview design methodology,
built on an emerging framework grounded in BFT, SCT, and Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) theory
of social networking, this study sought to amplify BWCEs’ voices and experiences with White
allyship as outsiders leading in predominantly White C-suites. This study also sought to reveal
how BWCEs leveraged or underutilized their self-efficacy to challenge the intent and impact of
White allyship on their C-suite progression. The qualitative findings of the study interviews
aligned with the following research questions:
1. How do BWCEs assess White allyship as a resource through their advancement to
and sustainment in C-suite positions?
2. How does White allyship influence BWCEs’ self-efficacy in navigating career
networks to advance to or sustain C-suite positions?
It is important to note that the interviewees did not consider White allyship a sole factor
for their ability to ascend to or sustain their C-suite positions. Although a necessary or
contributing factor, given the historical dominance of Whites, particularly White men in
corporate C-suites, and given the historically systemic underrepresentation of BWCEs, the Black
women who participated in this study were C-suite executives of tremendous expertise, merit,
and grit. In some cases, some participants had no initial intention or desire to become C-suite

76
executives. Nonetheless, all were determined to demonstrate exemplary work performance at
every level of their career journeys. As a result, Whites in positions of power, who observed this
excellence as an organizational asset, often aided the participants’ advancement to the C-suite.
However, the study findings did not explicitly convey how each participant’s organization
identified, leveraged, or promoted White allyship as a requisite factor for their representation,
inclusion, or sustainment in their C-suite positions.
Participants
I randomly selected the study participants from searches of LinkedIn profiles of Black
women C-suite executives, personal connections, and the snowball effect. These efforts enabled
me to identify close to 140 BWCEs as potential study participants. Through personal
communications (for example, emails and text messages) with several of these BWCEs, I
received a positively overwhelming amount of interest and a quick turnaround in responses (on
average, less than two weeks) from many BWCEs. The high response rate response alone
reflected that BWCEs were eager to express their interest in this study, and they genuinely
desired to prioritize their participation and share their perspectives on White allyship in corporate
America. Arguably, this high level of response and willingness to participate in the study
dispelled the myth of crabs in the barrel syndrome and debunked related notions that Black
women are unsupportive of each others’ pursuits.
The 25 BWCEs I invited to participate met the inclusion criteria presented in Chapter
Three. I collected data through face-to-face, semi-structured, open-ended, 60-minute interviews
scheduled in alignment with each participant’s availability to interview via Zoom. The 25 indepth interviews took place over seven weeks, from October 31, 2023, to December 12, 2023. A
priori coding (Appendix D) and manual posteriori coding informed the data analysis and

77
subsequent findings. As shown in Appendix D, the interview protocol did not include explicit
questions about participants’organizational support. However, some participants chose to
voluntarily verbalize their beliefs, observations, or lack of experience with such support.
All 25 participants were assigned pseudonyms, and I kept their companies’ names
confidential to protect their anonymity. Table 2 provides short profiles of the participants’
demographics. These profiles describe participants’ current and former positions, years of
leadership experience in corporate America, and background or expertise.
Table 2
Participant Demographics
Participant Background
Amari Amari is a former chief human resources officer of a Fortune 500 tech
company, a board chair of a large U.S. healthcare system, and a
member of multiple corporate and nonprofit boards. She has over 40
years of experience as a technology executive. Her background
includes human resources, consulting for tech startups, strategic
advising, executive coaching, and philanthropy.
Ayanna Ayanna is the CEO and founder of a construction firm. She has over 25
years of leadership experience in the construction and real estate
development industries. An engineer by training, her background
includes deep expertise in municipal strategy implementation,
strategic management of federal and state-funded construction
projects, and developing construction training platforms.
Brielle Brielle is a former chief finance officer of three Fortune 500 tech
companies, a corporate board director, and a member of multiple
corporate boards. She has over 20 years of leadership experience in
investment banking and tech industries. Her background includes
expertise in business strategy, financial operations, and advising
start-up companies.
Chloe Chloe is the chief finance officer of a Fortune 500 tech company and a
member of multiple corporate boards. She has over 25 years of
leadership experience in corporate America within accounting firms
as a certified public accountant and law firms as a practicing

78
Participant Background
attorney. In addition to her current C-suite role, she has served as
CFO at other public and private companies and as a COO of a
nonprofit organization. She has deep experience in strategy,
compliance, governance, contracting, and scaling companies for
successful exits.
Ciarra Ciarra is a former chief information officer of a Fortune 500 industrial
machinery manufacturing company, a former chief information
technology officer of a pharmaceutical company, a member of the
board of directors of three publicly traded companies, the CEO of a
start-up company, and a published author. She has over 25 years of
leadership experience in corporate America. Her background
includes global technology, business strategy, leadership
development, and public speaking expertise.
Darlene Darlene is a former chief human resources officer of a professional
services company. She has 15 years of C-suite leadership and 25
years of leadership experience, which has been in human resources at
Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies, primarily within the sports,
entertainment, hospitality, and retail industries. She also has
executive expertise in private equity and the nonprofit space.
Gaby Gaby is the chief marketing officer of a biotech company. She has over
10 years of leadership experience in biotech marketing and sales. Her
background includes life science consulting and expertise in
immunology, in which she holds a Ph.D. and has experience as a
bench scientist.
Harper Harper is a former chief diversity officer of an HR tech company, a
former chief people officer and chief equity and impact officer for
staffing and recruiting companies, and the founder of a digital
platform for business owners. She has over 25 years of leadership
experience in Human Resources. Her background includes expertise
in HR, talent acquisition, and DEI.
Heather Heather is a former CEO and co-founder of a wellness and fitness
service company and the owner of a business advising and consulting
firm. She has over 12 years of leadership experience. Her
background and expertise include leading mergers and acquisitions,
business development within the tech industry, fundraising, and
strategic advising of corporate boards.
Jordan Jordan is the CEO and president of a political action fundraising
company and a former COO of a financial services company. She has
over 15 years of executive leadership experience in multiple Fortune
500 tech companies. An engineer by training, her background and

79
Participant Background
expertise include engineering management, business analysis,
security operations, product management, and public service in
multiple government leadership roles.
Justine Justine is the chief information officer of a Fortune 500 tech company.
She has over 25 years of executive leadership experience in the tech
industry, working in chief of staff roles at Fortune 50 companies and
leadership roles in the U.S. federal government. A nationally
recognized, award-winning engineer and speaker, her additional
expertise includes building and leading teams and directing corporate
boards.
Katrina Katrina is a former CEO and chairman of a global network of
marketing communications companies and a member of several
Fortune 500 corporate boards and nonprofit boards. She has over 25
years of leadership experience in corporate America. Her background
and expertise include national, award-winning recognition for her
executive leadership of Fortune 500 companies and a U.S.
presidential-appointed public service role.
Kelis Kelis is a former chief human resources officer of a biotech company
and a member of multiple corporate boards. She has over 20 years of
leadership experience in corporate America. An attorney by training,
her background and expertise include organizational development,
finance, HR consulting, and advising start-up companies.
Leslie Leslie is a former CFO of a tech company and multiple public and
private tech companies, a founder and managing partner of a
business consulting company, and a member of multiple corporate
and nonprofit boards. She has over 35 years of leadership experience
in C-suite roles at Fortune 500 companies. Her background and
expertise include mergers and acquisitions, leadership of commercial
and investment banks, corporate strategy, marketing, and DEI.
Lucinda Lucinda is a former chief diversity officer and corporate officer of a
Fortune 500 industrial machinery manufacturing company, a
published author, and the owner of a business consulting firm. She
has over 30 years of leadership experience in corporate America. Her
background includes DEI consulting, leadership development,
executive coaching, and philanthropy.
Monique Monique is the chief legal officer at a tech company, a corporate board
adviser, and a nonprofit board member. She has over 15 years of
executive leadership experience at Fortune 500 tech companies and
in the legal industry as a practicing attorney. Her background and
expertise include cloud computing, AI, business operations, and DEI.

80
Participant Background
Nicole Nicole is the chief human resources officer of a tech company. She has
over 20 years of leadership experience in human resources. Her
background includes HR consulting within the tech industry in the
United States and internationally.
Octavia Octavia is the COO and president of a multinational information
technology company and a member of international corporate boards
and nonprofit boards. She has over 25 years of leadership experience
across several different technologies in the technology manufacturing
industry. An electrical engineer by training, her expertise at the
executive level includes global mergers and acquisitions and global
change management.
Patrice Patrice is a former CEO of a publicly traded healthcare company, a
former COO of a publicly traded diversified holdings company, and
a member of multiple corporate boards as a public and private board
director. She has over 10 years of executive leadership experience in
corporate America. Her background includes expertise in various
industries, including automotive, entertainment, professional sports,
banking, and legal (as she holds a juris doctor degree), and standing
up and selling many large corporations.
Shaunice Shaunice is the CFO of a consumer services company, a former chief
transformation officer of a Fortune 500 tech company, a former chief
accounting officer of a retail apparel and fashion company, and a
nonprofit board member. She has over 20 years of cross-industry
leadership experience. Her expertise is in finance, enterprise
transformation, and scaling companies.
Shelby Shelby is a former chief marketing officer at a healthcare company and
director of a corporate board. She has over 20 years of leadership
experience in the medical device, consumer goods, and industrial
manufacturing industries. An engineer by training, expertise includes
brand management, clinical education, and digital marketing.
Vivian Vivian is a chief risk officer of a risk management consulting firm and
a corporate board member. She has over 40 years of leadership
experience managing complex risks of Fortune 500 companies in the
tech, consumer goods, and retail industries. Her expertise includes
global risk management, insurance strategy, crisis management, DEI,
finance, and accounting.
Whitney Whitney is a former chief diversity officer of a public relations and
communications company and the current CEO of an executive
coaching and strategy consultancy. She has over 20 years of
leadership experience across diverse industries, including biotech,

81
Participant Background
pharmaceuticals, insurance, and nonprofit. Her background and
expertise include CEO advisement, belonging cultures, talent
strategy and management, inclusion, diversity, equity, access, and
social justice.
Yvonne Yvonne is a former CEO of a tech start-up, a former chief marketing
officer of two publicly traded tech companies, a board director of
multiple Fortune 500 companies, a board member of several national
nonprofit boards, an executive coach to CEOs, and a published
author. She has over 30 years of leadership experience in software
development and the IT services and consulting industry. Her
background includes strategic marketing, product development,
consulting, and public speaking.
Zahra Zahra is the chief diversity and inclusion officer of a Fortune 500
financial services company. She has over 25 years of leadership
experience in Human Resources within the tech industry. Her
background includes recruiting, DEI advising, and consulting.
The study participants were very diverse in terms of the sectors in which they worked.
Several participants had held positions in multiple sectors throughout their careers, as indicated
in Table 2. The majority of participants worked in the technology sector (31%). Figure 6 shows
the distribution of sectors across the study population.

82
Figure 6
BWCE Participant Sector Backgrounds
Note. Interview participants (N = 25).
The participants were also very diverse in their functional areas. Figure 7 shows the
various positions they held. It is important to note (as mentioned in Table 2) that some
participants held C-suite positions in more than one functional area throughout their careers. Five
were double-counted, given their experience in two different C-suite positions. I counted one
participant three times since she has held three C-suite positions. The majority of participants
were CEOs (n = 7).

83
Figure 7
BWCE Participant C-suite Officer Positions
Note. Interview participants (N = 25).
The participants showed diversity in their years of leadership experience in corporate
America. This experience ranged from 10 to 40 or more years. On average, participants had at
least 25 years of experience. Figure 8 shows the participants’ years of leadership experience in
corporate America.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Chief Accounting Officer
Chief Legal Officer
Chief Risk Officer
Chief Transformation Officer
Chief Equity and Impact Officer
Chief Information Officer
Chief Marketing Officer
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Diversity Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Human Resources Officer
Chief Executive Officer
Number of participants
C-suite Position

84
Figure 8
BWCE Participant Years of Leadership Experience in Corporate America
Note. Interview participants (N = 25).
Qualitative Findings Overview
Data collection consisted of 25 hours of in-depth interviews to explore BWCEs’
perspectives of White allyship. I asked all interview questions in accordance with the IRBapproved interview protocol (Table A1). The qualitative analysis included thematic coding and
categorization grounded in the study’s conceptual framework. The manual coding process began
with a priori coding (Appendix D), followed by manual axial coding. The resultant findings and
emergent themes unraveled how the 25 BWCEs perceived the role of their intersectional
identities, White allyship, corporate networking, and self-efficacy in their pathways to and tenure
in C-suite positions. The findings unveiled how they assessed White allyship, given its obstacles
and opportunities, and how it influenced their self-efficacy in career networking as they ascended
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10 years + 15 years + 20 years + 25 years + 30 years + 35 years + 40 years +
Number of participants
Number of years of leadership experience

85
to and aimed to thrive in the C-suite. It is important to note that, given the timeframe of this
study (i.e., overlapping with the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Great Awokening on race
matters in 2019), data collection included participants’ narratives’ on White ally-specific actions
during this historical period. In particular, some findings reveal participants’ assessments of
White allyship in the context of the murder of George Floyd in May 2020 and instances of civil
unrest in the United States and around the world exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Consequently, this phenomenological research study and its data may be considered archival.
As shown in Table 3, the study’s findings are presented in alignment with the research
questions.
Table 3
Research Questions and Findings
Research questions Key findings
How do BWCEs assess White allyship
as a resource through their
advancement to and sustainment in
C-suite positions?
White allyship as action-oriented, nonperformative,
risk-taking behavior
White allyship as critical for overcoming systemic
C-suite barriers
White male allyship as more prevalent than White
female allyship
White allyship as nonexistent or undefinable
How does White allyship influence
BWCEs’ self-efficacy in navigating
career networks to advance to or
sustain C-suite positions?
Pioneering power, privilege, and paradox
Optimizing the networking trifecta: genius,
community, and deficiency
Identifying BWCEs’ barriers to White allyship
Leaning into your values, networking, and
reciprocal relationships

86
Findings of Research Question 1
Research Question 1 explored how the participants evaluated White allyship as a resource
or asset they could draw on to advance to and sustain their C-suite positions. I asked participants
four relevant interview questions. First, I asked, “How do you describe allyship in the context of
your career development?” Next, I asked, “How do you define White allyship?” Additionally, I
asked, “If someone were to say that allyship from White colleagues contributes to Black
women’s ascension to or sustainment in C-suite positions in corporate America, what would you
say to them?” Finally, I asked participants to describe their personal experiences with White
allyship in their careers, specifically experiences in which they had personally benefitted from or
been challenged by White allyship
Overall, the findings revealed four themes. The first theme highlighted the interviewees’
definition of White allyship. This theme indicated the criteria they deemed essential to White
allyship in its most authentic form: action-oriented, nonperformative, risk-taking behavior. The
second theme was evaluating White allyship as critical for overcoming systemic barriers. This
theme elucidated the implications of systemic racism and genderism in corporate America, both
of which impacted the participants, given their intersectional identities of Black and female. The
third theme was observing White allyship as more prevalent among White men than White
women. This theme exposed participants’ assumptions and encounters with gender- and racespecific tensions among their assumed allies, White women, and unexpected allies, White men.
Finally, the fourth theme, which was unanticipated though understandable, was the interviewees’
determining White allyship as nonexistent or undefinable in their careers because it was
unapparent or unauthentic in their experiences with White colleagues.

87
White Allyship As Action-Oriented, Nonperformative, Risk-Taking Behavior
Participants articulated how their definitions of White allyship mandated the presence of
observable, empathetic, and unsolicited actions from White colleagues. These definitions
revealed that participants’ assessments of White allyship required them to see the allyship as
White colleagues’ outward willingness to step into BWCEs’ inequities and step down to uplift
BWCEs. Also, participants conveyed that this allyship must be enacted without the White
colleagues’ expectation of personal gain, such as self-gratification, public praise, or titles.
Furthermore, the allyship must come with the risk of the White colleague decentering their
power and privilege. Zahra explained,
Allyship is absolutely an action, but it is the right action. So, you know, I think there are
some people who claim to be allies who have caused harm. So, I would say causing no
harm needs to be a part of that.
Similarly, Kelis stated,
It is very action-oriented. And to me, it feels as if, you know, it’s really stepping into my
shoes and behaving as if whatever is happening, that needs to be addressed, is happening
to that person. So, you know, showing up with that same intensity or feeling of “Yeah,
we need to do something differently,” as if [the White allies] were also being impacted. It
can be behind the scenes, or it can be very much in front, out in front, and in public. But
it’s about action.
Jordan described allies as
The ones who believe the same thing, and who see it as their role to make space for that
to happen, not to claim my story or my voice, not to try to inherit or be that voice, but to
just clear the way for that voice to come through a little bit more clearly.

88
Harper also noted, “Allyship is the people who are willing to spend their capital and their
privilege to advocate actively, sponsor, and support multiple dimensions of diversity at all
times.” Harper further explained,
I often talk about the difference between intention and impact. And, so, I’ll be really
honest. I think that most White allies, be they male, female, [or] nonbinary, are genuinely
attempting and believe that they are allies. I do believe that, right? What I don’t think that
they understand is the work that’s required to do that and the sacrifice that should sit
there because I believe people are willing to be allies up until the point where it impacts
their privilege.
Nicole specifically defined White allyship in the context of the murder of George Floyd.
Nicole stated, “I would say allyship didn’t really show up for me from White people until after
George Floyd.” She elaborated,
That’s when more people spoke up, and one, just to check on me, which I thought was
pretty cool because I was not bringing that part of myself to work. But for them to reach
out, offer to go with me to a protest if I was interested in having them attend with me...
I’m in charge of HR. So there was a communication piece that had to go out to the
company. [My coworkers were] offering to write the communication for me so I didn’t
have to. My coworkers showed up for me in very specific ways that I would say is
definitely [White] allyship.
Monique also referred to the murders of George Floyd and Trayvon Martin in her
definition of White allyship. Monique’s definition emphasized the requirement of nonperformative behavior of White allies and the factors that enabled her to thrive in her career. She
explained,

89
I think it’s less about the picket line but [moreso about] the sense of equity when it comes
to my expectation and my treatment [as an employee]. I have thrived in my career, not by
people telling me that they care about Black people or asking me how I feel about
Trayvon Martin or George Floyd. That hasn’t impacted my career. I’ve thrived when
people have given me the work that I needed to do to prove myself to them. I have
thrived when people have sat me at the table without forcing me to build my own chair. I
have thrived when people treated me as a counterpart, as an equal. And so I think that’s
what [White] allyship is to me and not just performative bullshit.
These narratives highlighted participants’ assessment of White allyship as deliberate acts
of intentionality, selflessness without cause for recognition, and sacrifice of White power and
privilege. To be true champions and agents of C-suite reform, participants held White allies to
certain expectations. White allies were not simply required to believe or behave in solidarity with
BWCEs. They were also mandated to demonstrate ethics and integrity that protected participants
from further marginalization and oppression in the corporate environment. Table 4 presents an
overview of positive experiences of White allyship, from which study participants personally
benefitted, as articulated by 19 of the 25 participants. It is noteworthy that the remaining six
participants were not included because they explicitly stated that White allyship was absentr
indefinable along their C-suite trajectory. Table 4 lists the number of participants who identified
each positive experience of White allyship, along with corresponding quotes exemplifying each
participant’s experience.

90
Table 4
BWCEs’ Positive Experiences of White Allyship
White allyship
experience
Number of
participants
Participant quotes
Sponsoring,
creating a
promotion,
exposure, or
stretch
opportunity
11 Amari: She [a White female ally who was my boss] cleared
the way because she had other people who were waiting
in the wings for that job. She passed them over to provide
me the opportunity. She had to talk to, I’m sure, to her
boss about what she had planned to do. And she [my
ally] had to hold that [management job, which was a
promotion for me]. … not that she had to, but she
decided to hold the spot open for me until I came back [to
work from my maternity leave].
Chloe: Very early on in my career, when I was practicing
law, a White partner saw me work on a deal and said I
did a good job and [he] said, “You know what? I’m going
to put you on all of my mergers and acquisitions and
deals. Every single one. If I do it, you do it.” That was a
supporter and an ally early in my career, and him doing
that actually helped me so much later in my career when
I became CFO because I was able to go back to a lot of
those experiences with a lot of confidence because that
started my career.
Ciarra: People you know, people that are above you, they
pull you up. You never get a job by anybody who pushes
you up per se. They gotta pull you up from above. And
the people that were pulling me up from above didn’t
look like me. And so I would say that almost every
promotion I got came because of an ally because of a
relationship with someone [who was a White ally].
Justine: I always tell people, my career has been marked by
hard work, dedication, focus, but really showing up in a
way to add value to everyone that I interfaced with and
them saying we want you [to be] a part of our team. And
them being willing to sponsor, advocate for me, and
mentor me. And so I have what I call my Team Justine. It
probably has about 50 faces on the slide because these
are all people that have come alongside of me, and really
helped me. And really, as I share with them what my
goals were, they made sure to wear my t-shirt when I
wasn’t in the room and just open doors for me.
Leslie: I became close with some of these [non-Black
women] who were on boards in biotech. So it got to the
point where they’re looking into [filling] board positions.

91
White allyship
experience
Number of
participants
Participant quotes
This is where that [White] allyship thing showed up.
When they learned about a board position or something,
they would refer each other and me when I found out that
I was not being referred. So, I just think about that when
it comes to allyship.
Lucinda: [A White ally who was the CEO of my company
said in a public company meeting], “I don’t know how
many of you have met Lucinda, but I would encourage
each of you to get her into your business. Let her take a
look at what they’re doing, and be helpful to you.” And
now, [because of this] everybody’s got my name!
Octavia: They [White male allies] not only exposed me to
opportunities that I would not have necessarily
considered, but they literally pushed me into those
opportunities. I’ll give an example. There was a
promotion where people could put their name in a hat and
say, “Yes, I’m interested.” I didn’t put my name in the
hat. And I got the promotion because he [my White male
ally] put my name in the hat. He pushed me into that role,
right? And I told him, … and I remember the
conversation I said, “But I’m not ready.”He’s like, “Yes,
you are. But it doesn’t matter. I’m the one to determine if
you’re ready.”
Patrice: A White male two decades older than me. … I got
to know him because we did a deal with him, with
[REDACTED] with [REDACTED], and he ran a public
company separate from the deal we were doing, and I
wanted to get on the board. And I said,[to him] “I want to
be on your board.” He’s like, “You want to be on a public
board?” I was like, “Yeah, I want to be on another one. I
was on [REDACTED] at the time. He said, “Fine. I’ll
find you one.” And literall,y a week later, he was like,
“Go see this guy [REDACTED]. He’s the chair of the
board.” And I got on another board which I later went on
to chair.
Shelby: It was a professional connection and a true ally in
this CEO [a White man] that got me from where I was [in
a VP role at another company] into the C suite of a
publicly traded company. I [had] met the ultimate ally
that changed my life forever.
Vivian: They [mostly White male allies] provided feedback.
They provided feedback to help me. They provided
insights that you know, ‘Hey, here’s something that’s
coming up that you may be good for.’ They spoke up for

92
White allyship
experience
Number of
participants
Participant quotes
me. They mentioned my name when I wasn’t in the room
and created opportunities for me. So you know, I could
tell that, you know, some of these opportunities didn’t
just happen. Someone said something.
Yvonne: A big one [a time when I personally benefitted
from White allyship] was getting on the board of
[REDACTED], and [REDACTED] was a reference, [a
White male ally] who was chairman of the company, …
and he’s the one who recommended me for that [board
position].
Speaking up
against racism
or biases
4 Ayanna: In corporate America, I think I had maybe one true
ally. It was a White male that was nearly 20 years my
senior, and we developed a friendship, professional
friendship that allowed me to grow and learn a lot about
the industry with his help and with his guidance. He was
one that would often shut down the conversation when
there was tinges of racism that may find its way into it [a
conversation] or even bias or gender bias when it would
find its way to a conversation. He would be the one to
kind of eliminate those and counter them with something
else.
Harper: It was a White woman who sat in that room [during
a succession planning meeting], and said, “Stop. Stop!
First, you’re making assumptions, and that’s not your
decision to make. If you think she’s[Harper’s] qualified
to do the job, and by the way, I think this job was written
for her, you give her the opportunity and should she say
‘Yes [or] no, this is not the right time,’ or ‘No, I don’t
want to relocate my children,’ you can have this
conversation. But you will not have this conversation
otherwise.” I took that director job. I moved my family
and that was my pathway to leading to me being chief,
but that would not have happened had it not been for a
White ally in the room.
Katrina: There were two people who were very instrumental
and just like pulling my coat about different things. They
happen to be White men. They’re in their 80s now. I stay
in touch with them. I love them to death for everything
they did for me when I hit speed bumps. And many
times, I found out after the fact that I knew they had a
hand in correcting people’s perceptions, particularly
some White men who just couldn’t believe a Black
woman can do X, Y, and Z, or stepping in when I was
having a problem with a manager because just working

93
White allyship
experience
Number of
participants
Participant quotes
with a Black woman was particularly challenging for
them. But these guys stepped in for me in so many ways.
So it’s being willing to step up and step in when people
need a course correction on how to view a person’s
performance.
Zahra: I think it’s the being able to advocate for my ideas
or, you know, my work or the work I stand for when I’m
not in the room. And I have had incidences of people
being like, “ So and so [a White ally] really went to bat
for the ERG program.” Now, the ERG program isn’t me,
but it is a part of my work. And so that advocacy when I
wasn’t there and didn’t know the conversation was even
being had. Like that’s the ultimate kind of power. That’s
the allyship that scales because typically, we’re [BWCEs
are] Onlys—the ‘Lonely Onlys,” as they call it and we
can’t be everywhere in every meeting and all the things
all the time. So having someone be able to speak up on
your behalf in a room because they’ve taken the time to
understand what you’re doing, what you’re up to, what
some of your challenges are, and being able to advocate
in that way when you’re not there, that’s scaling allyship.
That’s top tier.
Coaching or
mentoring
4 Brielle: He [a White male ally] was vocal about it [his
support of me]. And he would actually pull me to the side
and we would have meetings about what I did well, what
I didn’t do well. So he was truly trying to bring
information back from other people and give it to me so
that I could take that information and then improve or do
better or do things differently. That was also a way that I
could really tell that he was trying to get me exposure,
trying to get me on the best deal, trying to get me
complexity, just trying to round out my experience.
Nicole: So there was a CFO, a White lady CFO, and she and
I were. … We had worked together for a little while, and
so she was aware of some of the obstacles that I was
facing, mostly as I was making the jump from director to
VP, with showing up differently. But what she did, she
took me to dinner actually and she was like, “You need to
show up differently. Here’s some things that you need to
do.” She kind of like took me under her wing and would
speak up on my behalf when I was not in rooms, would
give me tips on how to approach people. She made space
for me to make space for myself.

94
White allyship
experience
Number of
participants
Participant quotes
Shaunice: I met this wonderful woman when I was at the
[REDACTED] conference last year, and we ended up
talking. We were at a table together. Talk about White
woman allyship. … She is in this group; they call
themselves [REDACTED]. It’s this group of White
women who are super successful in their careers. We sat
down and talked, and she said, ‘Shaunice, I want to ask
you: Why are you looking for love in all the wrong
places?’ But it had to do with the companies I was
picking, values not truly being aligned on the inside and
out.
Whitney: He’s [my White male ally is] the only one [White
ally], right? This is the same man with whom I navigated
with to that C-suite position. He literally said to me, “I’ve
got you taken care [with professional references]. Don’t
even worry about that.” He said, “ [When you interview
for that C-suite position], you walk into that [interview]
room with the confidence of a middle-aged White man.”
White Allyship As Critical for Overcoming Systemic C-Suite Barriers
Participants shared a belief that the long-standing history of White dominance of
corporate C-suites is a barrier that blocks BWCEs’ access to these positions and constrains their
career mobility and success sustainment. The majority of participants also concluded that as a
consequence of White power in corporate America, White allyship is a critical or required option
for navigating the complexities of Black women’s C-suite trajectories and thriving. Chloe
confirmed, “In my experience, it’s almost impossible to not have that [White allyship] happen
and to get to where you are in your career.” Ciarra remarked, “I would say that almost every
promotion I got came because of a [White] ally, because of a relationship with someone
[White].” Lucinda emphasized,

95
The reality is that our corporate boards are predominately White. Our corporate C-suites
are predominately White. We have very few diversity … White people, White men, and
White women certainly need to open up the doors and make sure that they are releasing a
strong hold on position for the sake of tradition and legacy.
Patrice asserted, “CEOs are hired by boards, and you cannot become a CEO of any public
company unless you have White allyship. You cannot because we [Black women] don’t have the
numbers.” Lucinda shed further light on the imperative need for White allyship, asserting,
That’s accurate … because no matter how good you are at performing a task or
performing a job, when you get to the very top of a corporation, a lot of it is about fit. A
lot of it is about being brokered into the inner circle. … In the C-suite, in the power
structure, there are concentric rings. There are concentric rings, and a lot of times, people
get to this outer ring, and they think they’re in, but they don’t even know that there are
really two more rings in there. And, there’s a ring you may never really get into because
that just may be like four or five people. But you can get pretty far in. But the only way
you’re going to get in is somebody’s got to bring you in. You can’t just say, “Well, I’m
here!” You’ve got to be brought in, and that’s for anybody. That’s not just for Black
women. That’s for Black men; it’s for White people, too. The issue is just that the people
in the inner rings are already White.
In contrast to these responses, some women expressed skepticism about the criticality of
White allyship. Amari articulated, “Yeah. I’d say, in the abstract, that’s probably true. You
know, it’s not true in every instance. … I do think [White allyship] makes a difference.” Brielle
provided a view that questioned White allyship as a critical contributor to BWCEs’ ascension to
C-suite positions. She argued,

96
I think there are probably select instances where that has occurred [White allyship as
contributing to Black women’s ascension to or sustainment in C-suite positions]. But I
just don’t see it frequently. I feel like the Black women who are in leadership positions in
the C-suite have put in a lot of time and put in a lot of work. And they need the allyship,
but they’re overqualified to be where they are anyway.
Gaby also stated,
If I want to be an ally, and I am a White man who wants to go run another company one
day, and I’m an SVP somewhere, I want to be able to talk about all of the people of color
that I have helped to ascend. That’s great for them [White men]. … Specifically, I’m
talking about career progression. I think allyship is not required. … It helps, sure, but I
don’t think it’s required for it. Allyship, in my opinion, feels more like a relationship
long-term. Receiving allyship is wonderful, but it actually feels a lot more like it’s the
journey of the ally, of the learning and the unlearning, and the solidarity, and that’s great
for [White allies].
These responses revealed three points. First, White allyship was not very frequent in the
interviewees’ lived experience. Second, participants’ intellect, talent, and skills cannot be
discounted as significant contributors to their ability to tackle systemic workplace inequities and
achieve C-suite positions. Third, White allyship potentially presents greater benefits, including
career advantages or career progression, to White allies than to the recipients of White allyship.
White Male Allyship As More Prevalent Than White Female Allyship
Most participants indicated that White allyship could and should be present along the
pathway to and in the C-suite domain because it can help cultivate and sustain BWCEs’
representation. However, in assessing White allyship as a career resource, participants disclosed

97
their beliefs that sharing gender with a White colleague did not necessarily predict the potential
for or the success of a White ally relationship. Zahra mentioned the fallacy of assuming White
women will be allies. She asserted, “Sometimes the people you think should be an ally are not an
ally. … I think demographics isn’t the only qualifier.” Zahra further expressed, “I was
heartbroken to see that another woman, especially a [White] woman who is a CEO, which is a
rare thing, didn’t want to participate [as my ally].” Despite this experience, a few participants
noted positive experiences of White female allyship. Amari reflected, “I knew that she wasn’t
going to let me drown and that she would be there for me if I needed her, and she would clear the
way if I needed her to do that.” Also, Harper stated: “I’ve experienced more of the White women
who squashed stuff than I’ve experienced [the opposite]. … The White women who are truly
allies are ride-or-die allies, and there is that values alignment.”
By contrast, many participants assessed that White men tended to show up more readily
or frequently as allies than White women. Octavia recalled, “And those people [my allies], those
Jewish men through my career, those men are the ones that were willing to [be my allies].”
When gender differences were present between participants and their White allies, positive
career outcomes resulted, both in the short and long terms. Darlene stated,
I think, as Black women, we are often viewed as a threat, particularly by White women.
It’s a competitive relationship from Day 1. Four or five White males throughout my
career have recognized my talent and literally made sure I got promoted to the next level
in different organizations. It’s never a White female. All White males.
Similarly, Lucinda also spoke about the concept of threat, stating,
I would say more men than women [have been allies to me in my career] because I think
the men that have been allies to me, the White men, are White men who understand, who

98
want to be surrounded by or want to be aligned with excellence, period. … Once your
brand is excellent, White men want to be around you and want to help you because they
want to take credit for it. I find White women, no matter what level they are, because of
the power dynamic with White women, White women always have an ability to feel
threatened. White men, when they get here [to the C-suite], they do not. The threat thing
is not there. It’s nonexistent. So, they will freely be an ally, whereas that White woman
still has that thing out of the corner of her eye because she knows she’s not at the top of
the food chain.
These responses illustrate that, generally, White men were more frequent allies to
participants. However, this finding does not suggest that White men were necessarily the
participants’ only White allies or the better White allies. Some White women provided
instrumental allyship, such as sponsorship, collaborative support, and values alignment. Also,
given White women’s minority status in C-suite positions relative to White men, White women’s
competitiveness with participants is not an unexpected or uncommon observation. White
women’s fears and susceptibility to being outshined or surpassed by participants stems from
Black women’s intersectionality. However, regardless of whether White women or White men
perceive BWCE’s intersectionality to be threatening or valuable, participants stated that the
differences in the prevalence of White male allyship and White woman allyship are real. Further,
these realities can jeopardize Black women’s career trajectories, endanger their psychological
safety with White colleagues, and potentially persist as White men continue to comprise the most
extensive representation and power in corporate America’s C-suites.
White Allyship As Nonexistent or Undefinable

99
Seven participants (28%) stated they did not have experiences with White allyship in
their careers. Five of them (20%) indicated that when White allyship was highly unapparent, they
regarded it as nonexistent. Their narratives emphasized their belief that White allyship must be
visible or demonstrable to be verifiably present in their careers. Even when some participants
invested efforts to secure White allyship proactively, those efforts resulted in disappointment, as
they did not come to fruition. Leslie shared, “It took me a while to experience White allyship.
One of the things that I knew as you pursued things, it was important to seek it out. But be
prepared for it not showing up for you.” Also, Jordan stated,
I have not seen stunning examples of allyship in my work. I have seen it in my political
life. I have seen it in my organizing, but these spaces exist to point out that the models
aren’t good everywhere else, right? I absolutely know what it looks like, but it has not
been in my corporate life that I’ve seen that [White allyship].
For some participants, White allyship was so greatly lacking and infrequently observable in their
career development that they set low expectations for its existence. Also, they were astonished or
fascinated when White allyship became apparent or visible in their workplaces. Gaby
commented,
Finding places of allyship and community has never been an expectation [for me]
because I didn’t have it for a very long time. And now that there’s more of that [White
allyship] now, I find myself surprised when I receive it or when I see it. And it’s almost
like a curiosity, like watching National Geographic. It’s hard for me to even connect it to
every experience because it was so, … I don’t want to say hard, but it became so
challenging at every point that you become a little bit calloused after a while. Like I said
at the beginning, I’m certain people have all kinds of assumptions about who I am and

100
how I got here [to my C-suite position]. I’m so unbothered by it because I lived it for so
long that I had to, at some point, just build a callous to it. This [White allyship] is not a
part of your consciousness.
Similarly, Kelis remarked,
I can’t think of an instance when I observed, not as a C-suite person, where I felt people
were really acting as an ally. I mean, I have some experiences in … my board roles, but
nothing in the C-suite.
Heather also conceded, “To be really frank, like, I’ve had very few non-paid allies.” These
responses were interesting and unexpected. They reflected that in participants’ worlds of
corporate leadership, dealmaking, fundraising, and paid corporate board appointments,
participants questioned the existence of White allyship, particularly when money was the key
driver or an influencing factor for White colleagues to form alliances with BWCEs.
Participants also revealed that when White allyship was unauthentic, they considered it
undefinable. Without evidence of White allyship that was genuine and trustworthy, participants
struggled to give White allyship a description other than something opposite to what participants
desired or needed. Darlene asserted,
I don’t know that I see it. So, it’s hard for me to define it. I see it when it comes to
LGBTQ+ outreach, and I just don’t see it for Black women. Some White males will make
an attempt or overtures to say, “I want to be an ally to you and for you,” but you don’t see
any evidence that gives it lip service. So, I don’t know. This is really very honest. I just
don’t know that I’ve ever seen it in a way that makes me feel like it was intentional.
These narratives convey that White allyship, whether nonexistent or undefinable, was
arguably a career resource many participants desired or knew they needed. The absence of White

101
allyship during critical moments in participants’ careers and the observation of seeing others
receive allyship in the workplace yielded participants’ mixed emotions. Participants were
appreciative or pleasantly shocked to see White allyship happening yet simultaneously
disappointed in its delayed appearance, infrequency, selective provision, or lack of genuineness.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
The research findings for Research Question 1 suggested that participants were highly
observant and reflective in their assessments of White allyship. They consciously evaluated
White allyship, whether or not they encountered it during their careers. Still, they regarded White
allyship as a career tool that could potentially enhance their career experiences and address
BWCEs’ lived experiences of marginalization and inequities. However, some participants did
not trust that their White female counterparts could show up as frequently as White male allies or
as non-competitive allies. Participants perceived White female allies as sensitive to the shared
womanhood, which, in and of itself, presented a seemingly insurmountable barrier for both
groups of women. Additionally, some participants were hopeful in the presence or absence of
White allyship. Yet, others were doubtful and disappointed by its lack of authenticity and
definability.
Findings of Research Question 2
Research Question 2 examined how White allyship influences the participants’ selfefficacy in navigating career networks to advance to or sustain C-suite positions. I asked the
participants six relevant interview questions:
• What does being a Black woman and a C-suite executive in corporate America mean
to you?
• What does networking in corporate America mean to you?

102
• What are some of the most significant challenges you personally face now in the Csuite (or have faced throughout your ascension to a C-suite position)?
• In your opinion, what (if anything) prevents Black women executives from
proactively seeking out White colleagues as allies in the workplace?
• How have your personal experiences with White allyship impacted how you have
navigated your career development (if at all)?
• As a BWCE, what advice would you give to other Black women in their experiences
with White allyship in corporate America?
Collectively, these interview questions aimed to reveal the significance of how the interviewees
drew on their intersectionality and self-efficacy to exert influence over their predominantly
White corporate environments, given the White allyship they perceived, accepted, or pursued.
Additionally, these questions sought to convey how BWCEs’ self-efficacy dictates short-term
and long-term effects on their ability to ascend to and thrive in the C-suite.
The aggregate findings of Research Question 2 revealed four themes. The first theme
conveyed that participants viewed themselves as pioneers of power and privilege. This theme
highlighted how they considered their experiences of being the first Black woman to hold some
C-suite positions, coupled with their intersectionality of Blackness and womanhood, as
phenomenal platforms to create space for more Black women and other marginalized people’s
representation in corporate America’s C-suites. The second theme that emerged was the
interviewees’ optimization of the networking trifecta (i.e., genius, community, and deficiency).
This theme illustrated participants’ diverse self-efficacies and motivational and affective
processes in selecting support networks, inclusive of White allies, in their corporate
environments. The third theme was the participants’ cognitive processes of identifying and

103
interrogating the real outsiders in the C-suite. This theme was intriguing, as it exposed some
contrasting perspectives on imposter syndrome and participants’ beliefs about who was the most
disadvantaged group in the C-suite, BWCEs or White allies. Finally, the fourth theme disclosed
participants’ convictions about the criticality of embracing allyship as a risky business of mutual
vulnerability. This theme underscored how participants’ self-efficacy, in the presence or absence
of White allyship, required them to courageously be an ally to gain an ally in White-dominated
corporate environments.
Pioneering Power, Privilege, and Paradox
The intersecting attributes of race and gender created a diversity of benefits for
participants in spaces of White allyship. Most participants regarded their intersectionality as
BWCEs as a vital asset that gave them the distinction of representation and afforded them
pioneering capabilities. Many participants shared the belief that as the first Black women to enter
into C-suite positions in their sectors, industries, or companies, they had the opportunity to
navigate unchartered territories, form strong alliances with White allies (if or when present), and
prepare the way for more Black women to secure C-suite positions. Justine stated, “I think it’s an
awesome gift and blessing, … an opportunity for me to bring others along, to open doors for so
many other people.” Harper declared that being a BWCE is the “fulfillment of representation
matters, and it is the ability to make space for others.” Darlene commented on the magnitude of
her C-suite representation as “just being able to have that seat, to have the representation for me,
other Black and Brown women and men in the workplace that have aspirations of getting to that
level.” Similarly, Zahra asserted, “It means I’ve opened the door for those behind me, my nieces
and nephews, Gen Z, Gen X or Gen Alpha, whoever, to be able to do the same.”

104
In addition to their capability or desire to develop opportunities for Black women to
secure C-suite positions, some participants reflected on their obligation to do so. Brielle
metaphorically called her BWCE platform “a torch to carry, to light the way for others.” Nicole
remarked, “I try to make sure that I lift as I climb.” Ciarra equated her platform as a BWCE to
Harriet Tubman’s “push and pull” mindset, stating,
My role model is Harriet Tubman. I believe in push and pull. That’s what we all got to
do. You know, we’re not here by ourselves, and we’re not here only for ourselves and
what Harriet does and did. … Well, she pushed forward. She found a way to win. She
found a way to be free. She earned her freedom, fought for her freedom, and earned it.
And, so, she pushed through! And every time she pushed through, she’d go through the
woods, a very dangerous environment. She was the only one, the first one. People didn’t
want her to win this, but she pushed through. But while she was pushing through, she was
also pulling people behind her, saying, “Come on, baby! Let me show you how to win.
Let me show you where the Promised Land is. Come on, let’s go!”
Power
In conjunction with the selflessness and forward-thinking mindset required of them as
pioneers, some participants highlighted the amount of power they possessed as BWCEs. Three
women spoke about how their power was so extensive that it enabled them to influence
ideologies in the C-suite and beyond their organizations. This power permitted participants to
represent the voices of diverse U.S. customer segments and, consequently, increase corporate
profits. Moreover, participants had the power to influence White allies’ C-suite succession,
promotion, or hiring decisions. Also, participants often dictated the selection of more Blacks and
other marginalized people into C-suite and corporate board positions. Therefore, participants’

105
power allowed them to accelerate the trajectories of business outcomes, including the hiring of
diverse, top talent and virtuous cycles of increasing returns in American corporations. Ciarra
commented on BWCEs’ “superpower” to significantly impact corporate America’s bottom line.
She clarified,
It’s a business issue. … And, so, the more that we can give our superpower and our
goodness and our, you know, our chocolate capabilities to the company, [the more] we
end up raising up the company’s business capability, their shareholder value, their market
share, their customer satisfaction. Efficiencies happen! Innovation happens with that! So,
it’s a business challenge. It is not a social issue. It is not a fairness issue. It is not an
equity issue. It is a business issue. So, that’s what being Black in the C-suite means to
me. It also means that it allows the rest of the company to become diverse. When I sit
there on a board, and I’m the only woman or the only Black or whatever, and they’re
getting ready to bring another board member in, my question is, where’s the diverse slate,
y’all? Where is it? So, why aren’t we bringing in more? So, I have the power to be able to
expect more diversity. And trust me, if you have a Black or diverse board, whether it’s a
C-suite or not, the board will make sure that there’s a diverse C-suite. It’ll just have to
happen. So, when they’re looking for a new head of HR or new head of marketing or new
head of operations, supply chain and manufacturing or whatever, … I can say, “Where’s
the diverse slate for the head of ops? Where’s the diverse slate for the head of HR? And
they better bring us some! And don’t be going to a White school [to recruit them]!”
Privilege
Three participants described how privilege was embedded within BWCEs’ power. They
also shared how their privilege as BWCEs afforded them advantages that would otherwise not be

106
available to them. Chloe stated, “I think that it [being a BWCE] is really a privilege and a
blessing in many ways. … I don’t take the opportunities lightly because there are so few people
who have been afforded the opportunity to do this.” Chloe elaborated further on why her
privilege exists: “We literally are their [our ancestors’] wildest dream,” … like, beyond, beyond!
And I don’t want to let them down.” By contrast yet related, Gaby reflected on how her status as
the first person ever to hold her C-suite position—and identity as a Black woman—provoked her
work colleagues to assign her celebrity status, labeling her “work famous.” She clarified how this
inference of privilege yielded certain benefits. Gaby remarked,
I can initiate conversations that I know are happening in the hallway, but people are
afraid to have because there are senior people in the room. And I’m conscious of that.
And, so, I can throw the stinking fish in the middle of the table because I have the seat to
do that, and in doing so, unlock a better solution because, instead, all this happens over
text messages. People are sometimes in the meeting, or they walk out doing the same
thing. And it’s like, I have an opportunity [to initiate hard conversations] because I’m a
known face.
Patrice and Shanice were the only participants who described unique perspectives on
their privileges as BWCE of biracial backgrounds who identified as Black but had “lightskinned” privilege. Patrice said that a White ally transparently expressed his skepticism about her
ability to convince investors that a “half-Black girl” like her could become CEO of a publicly
traded company. Patrice believed that her White ally would not have been so forthcoming with
his opinions had she physically appeared to be more brown-skinned or obviously Black to White
investors and colleagues. Shaunice remarked that she “thought the world saw me no different
from how they saw my father [a Black man].” However, Shaunice elucidated how her light skin

107
tone warranted certain responses from her White colleagues, which resultantly gave her the
privilege of gaining their uncensored perspectives of Black people. She commented,
I will say for me, being a Black woman in the C-suite, recognizing that not everybody
always knows that, I definitely see that power. But I see it in a way that I also have to
make sure that my community has access to that power because of the things and the
privilege that I get in my experiences, whether it’s because I’m a Black woman, whether
it’s because I’m getting allyship as a woman or you know, whatever it is. You know, I
don’t know. … I’m kind of like a secret agent sometimes. They [White people] say things
in front of me that they might not in front of somebody else.
Chloe was the only participant who described her privilege as a BWCE in the context of
experiencing George Floyd’s murder. She noted the impact this national and global tragedy had
on her perspective of her representation as a BWCE. She stated,
I remember right after George Floyd, a lot of people coming to me and saying, “It’s so
unfair that you have to go through these things, you know, being both a woman and
African American. It’s so unfair that people come to you and want you to speak on
behalf of your race. It’s so unfair, it’s so unfair!” And what I said is, “I could sit around
and be upset about how unfair it is, or I could use this opportunity that a lot of people
have not been afforded to actually help advance things for the generation after me. So, I
no longer get upset or bothered by those questions or by people asking me to make a
comment on behalf of the race. I first say, “I don’t speak for all Black people just like you
don’t speak for [all] White people. You don’t speak for all Chinese people, whatever. But
I’ll give you my perspective. And hopefully we can have like a really fruitful
conversation that betters everybody, right?”

108
Paradox
In contrast to the positive aspects of participants’ perceived role as pioneers of power and
privilege, some participants expressed concerns about the pressure of being BWCEs.
Participants’ narratives revealed the paradox of being the first or only Black woman to rise to the
top of the corporate ladder, yet constantly being questioned about their credibility,
underestimated for their knowledge and skills, and denied opportunities they had earned through
exemplary performance. Heather expressed the challenges of ascending to the C-suite, being
frequently underestimated for her talent, and being denied interviews at her organization “even
though I was in the top 5% of performers.” She explained, “Being a Black woman in corporate
America has been a burden, really. It’s definitely been a burden. It’s been a challenge.” She
expounded on this negative experience by stating,
I’d walk into the room [for an interview], and it’s like, “Nope, you’re not it!” just based
on how I walked in. And I present pretty well, so it’s not like, you know, that I’m coming
and not presenting myself well. It’s just the color of my skin. And after a while, that
really wears on you.
Participants revealed that negative experiences such as these made them question their
power and privilege as BWCEs. Despite her status as “work famous,” Gaby acknowledged,
Sometimes, it feels like if I weren’t a Black woman in corporate America, [the fact] that I
do this job would be the complete non-event. So, I kind of go-between: Is it a big deal, or
is it not a big deal?
Gaby also noted her dislike for “being in a world where you kind of are always on stage, and
you don’t really get a chance to have a bad day.” Shelby stressed the imperative need to “figure
out ways to navigate those emotional ups and downs. And if you’re aware, you’ll get a

109
counselor. You’ll get a therapist to help you navigate. The problem is when people aren’t aware,
and they spiral.”
Yvonne and Kelis both admitted confusion in sharing what it means to be a BWCE.
Yvonne articulated, “I don’t know how to answer the question. So, I’m not trying to be difficult.”
She and two other participants disclosed that they struggled to respond because they had never
been asked this question. Although Kelis could not express what being a BWCE meant to her,
she said, “But I know what it feels like. It can feel very isolating and lonely.” Katrina and
Monique spoke about their challenges in dispelling stereotypes as the only Black person in their
C-suites. Katrina recalled trying to avoid displaying “my Sapphire self.” Monique confessed to
resisting the temptation of “being the Mammy.” Jordan referred to such stereotypes and
unconscious bias as “bitter pills that you take and swallow initially. … Now, I hold them with a
fair amount of dignity and joy.” Darlene shed additional light on the paradox of her C-suite
power and privilege, explaining,
It was important to me to have that seat [C-suite position], but at what cost? That’s what I
always come back to—the cost that I have paid for that throughout the years.
Microaggressions are real at that level, and they’re smarter individuals [C-suite
executives], so they’re more skilled about how they convey them or how they deliver
them. But they exist. And you’re at the ceiling. So, where do you go? You have to wage a
complaint. And if you wanted to wage a complaint, … and because of my role in HR, that
complaint would come through me, and I would take it to the board. You’re boxed in. It’s
a very isolating existence.
Collectively, these narratives revealed participants’ essential need to balance their power
and privilege of pioneering corporate America’s C-suites and managing their White colleagues’

110
perceptions of them, whether perceived or actual. This necessity warranted a strategic approach
to discerning which White colleagues to rely on and, more importantly, whom to accept as
authentic allies that could support participants’ ascension to and abilities to thrive in their C-suite
positions.
Optimizing the Networking Trifecta: Genius, Community, and Deficiency
Participants conveyed that their self-efficacy in navigating their C-suite careers was
linked to optimizing multiple networking resources. Many shared that they could not have
achieved their C-suite positions without the support offered by colleagues—including White
allies—with whom they had formed relationships through professional networks internal and
external to their corporate workplaces. In addition to networking with workplace or industry
colleagues, many participants expressed the indispensable value of emotional support from their
networks of friends and family members in their close-knit communities. However, some
participants stressed that their introverted personalities and repulsion to the transactional nature
of networking rendered them sole practitioners of their C-suite development. Overall,
participants’ narratives indicated that networking is more than simply the professional and
psychological support of colleagues and loved ones, distant or close, or reliance on one’s
knowledge and skills. Rather, self-efficacy, particularly in realms of White allyship, entailed
strategically optimizing the trifecta (i.e., participants’ genius, support of distant ties, including
White allies), community (support of close ties) and having the agency to acknowledge, selfevaluate, and develop a plan to overcome a deficiency in their networking skills.
Genius
Participants discussed strategies and skills needed to network in corporate America,
specifically in the exclusive, high-powered realm of the C-suite. Amari noted that “networking is

111
very specific.” She articulated that her genius or “guiding light” in networking at her
organization was “developing a win-win.” This entailed embracing the reality that she needed the
support of her peers to complete her work successfully. She advised that despite her differences
with her C-suite colleagues—personality-wise and racial—win-win networking required
operating intentionally:
Start with the end in mind and have your actions be consistent with your intended
outcome. And, so, if you think about it that way, then you can sort of take the
personalities out of it, or at least set them aside.
Similarly, Chloe noted how networking as a BWCE required a strategy of leaning on
others at various levels—not just C-suite executives—for career development. She emphasized
that networking, particularly for Black women who remain underrepresented in the C-suite, is an
ongoing process of talking with diverse individuals, from LinkedIn recruiters and C-suite peers
to board members and investors. She declared, “Nobody makes it to the C-suite alone. It’s not
possible. Even people who are born into privilege in their family’s company.” She also said,
“There’s a network that has vetted you for them to actually spend their time talking to you. … if
I never get in the network, then I’ll never ascend to these [C-suite] positions because I’m not in
the network!”
Lucinda was the only participant who mentioned the concept of networking with
intentionality from the standpoint of leveraging a “playbook.” Her approach stressed that Black
women’s ascension to C-suite positions requires such excellent specificity and intentionality that
they should position themselves mentally and physically into spaces at their organizations where
they can build the knowledge and skills to excel and accelerate their careers quickly. She stated,

112
Down to the depths of my soul, I believe there is a playbook that you can teach someone
and learn skills on how to navigate to get pretty far in a company. As Black women, we
don’t always think about it that way. We think it’s happenstance. We think, “Oh, I was
just lucky,” or “I was just blessed.” And it can be all of that. But you can be much more
intentional about putting yourself in a zone. If you think about athletes, athletes go to
elite schools. They’re intentional! Could you get picked up to be on a top team, a top
college team, a top pro team, you know, like LeBron James out of high school? Yes, it
could happen, but boy, you up your chances if you’re intentional about how you set
yourself up! So, it’s no different than that.
Lucinda also elaborated on how her use of the playbook yielded White allyship. She spoke
candidly about the benefits of networking with Whites throughout her career development and
gaining allyship along the way and in her C-suite position. She explained,
They opened doors for me. They would provide advice and counsel. I could talk to them.
I could reach out. We could have real candid conversations about stuff. You could
explain, and then they would explain. For me, I don’t need to surround myself with other
Black women because I’m a Black woman. I already know how Black women think in
general, not everybody. We’re not a monolith. But what I need to understand is: How do
White men think because that’s who’s in the power structure? And, so, people would
spend time with me if I leaned in. So, it was very clear—people who were allies. And
again, that’s not everybody.
Shaunice and Harper emphasized intentionality in networking from the perspective of
values alignment. They honed in on the necessity of being intentional about selecting networks
and White allies who explicitly or implicitly shared their fundamental beliefs and principles.

113
Shaunice shared her focus on attending numerous networking events but “building authentic
relationships” with people she met “but getting really clear, being very clear on what my values
and my purpose are because I’m also very intentional about, in the networking, identifying the
people whose values are aligned to mine.” Harper articulated the pleasures and disappointments
in her search for values alignment with White and Black colleagues throughout her career. She
commented,
I’ve been really blessed. I do have a mentor and an ally, and a sponsor that is a White
woman who has had my back for more than 15 years. I’ve developed relationships where
White women have said my name in the room and created opportunities for me. But
that’s because we develop true relationships or we have respect for each other. And to be
honest, which is really sad and a whole other research study for someone else to do, I’ve
probably had less luck with Black women advocating and saying my names in rooms and
not trying to act in this crab-in-a-barrel mentality and trying to tear me down so that they
make space for themselves. And that’s always been really heartbreaking for me within
the corporate structure. And at the same time, I have really ride-or-die Black female
friends, who we support and lift each other up. For me, it’s about the search for values
alignment because you can be friendly with someone, and you can get years into a
relationship sometimes before you realize, before you hit one of those pivotal moments
when you realize our values are not aligned.
Patrice and Zahra elucidated another intentional element of networking—expansion
beyond the comfort zone of a predominantly Black network. Patrice reflected on her rationale for
expansion during her ascension to the C-suite. She explained,

114
I realized that I had to expand. Obviously, Black background painting is always great
because it just, you know, it gives you something. It builds you up because you like that
there are other people who are doing things like me, but I expanded, and I learned to ask
[White] people for things.
Zahra revealed her beliefs that “network shouldn’t only be tribal” and “Sharing
demographics is not a requirement for your network.” She also emphasized that Black women’s
ability to rise and thrive in C-suite positions mandates that they secure networks not comprised
of only Black people or other underrepresented minorities. Zahra explained,
You really need to get outside of that [the requirement of sharing demographics] if you
want to make it in corporate America because there will be times, and most times, where
you are not going to find someone who shares your demographic data.
Community
Although professional networks provided participants with a competitive edge on
knowledge, skills, or promotional opportunities, many narratives revealed that a personal
community of close friends or family had significant advantages over the broader professional
network. Participants expressed how, in a close-knit community, they could find judgment-free
zones of psychological safety in which they could be vulnerable. Ciarra called her community
“my corner.” Differentiating her corner from her “circle” (her professional network), Ciarra
remarked,
Just because someone is in your circle doesn’t mean they’re in your corner. And when
you have somebody that is in your circle, they’re there usually, you know, in good times,
and you know, when you make good money and all is well. But just go ahead and get
canceled one day, or go ahead and be poor, or get laid off or something. All of a sudden,

115
you wonder, are they still in my circle? Are they in my corner? … My community is
there in my corner whenever I need something and am struggling with something;
whether I’m winning [or not], they’re cheering me on.
Chloe agreed with the intimacy of her community and the significance of building that
community throughout her career. She stated, “Networking allows you to find your tribe, to find
your similarly situated people that you wind up trusting. Many of us have called it your personal
board of advisors.” Justine concurred as she shared that her network was a small community of
five executive women passed on to her by a White ally who was her former manager: “And, so,
that was the gift that she gave me within the first week when I joined the company. “And, so,
that network, still today, I’m still friends with those women. Justine further remarked,
I don’t do anything in my career, really in life, any major decisions, things I have to do
unless I’ve talked to [my network], my kitchen, my board of advisors, whatever you want
to call them, you know, my people.
Darlene highlighted that her community consisted specifically of Black women “who
were, as I was growing up, climbing the ladder, that were at my level and above my career.
We’ve just formed this sort of group, and we make time for each other.” Similarly, Octavia
remarked, “I feel like the Black executive community that I have relationships with, it’s a safe
space. So, it’s a place where I can bring problems, whether I’m having some issues in the
industry or I’m facing challenges where I’m working.”
Justine shared her perspective on the depth of her trust in her Black networking
community. As she navigated challenges in the C-suite, she stated,
Me and one of my sorority sisters, who actually happened to be the chief diversity
officer, and another friend, every Wednesday at noon, I mean, we had prayer. We had to

116
pray! We had to get over lunch and just call on the name of Jesus and not just for my
role, but for things that were happening for them, too. And, so, it’s real. It’s real when
you get to the levels, when you get into those rooms, when you walk through those [Csuite] doors. You’re one of the few that will ever be in that spot. And you may be one of
one. And it can be isolating at times, and people can want your job. And, so, it was us
praying, for over, I would say, a year … because we started praying, just started praying.
And then we had to really pray! But, you know, God always takes you through things for
His glory, for your growth. And, so, I just continued to praise and edify Him through the
process. And it was painful because I really wanted to say, “I’m done!” But I would have
avoided the vision, right?
Heather offered a different perspective than most participants about networking to gain a
sense of community. She said that during her rise to the C-suite, she did “not really” have a
community within her network. Although she shared an appreciation for the Black community
around her in her corporate environments, she articulated, “But that’s not necessarily the people
that will fight for you if you’re not in the room, primarily because they probably aren’t in that
room. So, it is pretty lonely.” Therefore, while Black friends or colleagues offered Heather a safe
space to thrive in her organization, this community did not have a presence in the C-suite.
Consequently, they had no influence on Heather’s ability to thrive in her C-suite position.
Deficiency
Participants unanimously agreed on the value of networking to cultivate meaningful
professional and informal relationships, whether with White allies or other colleagues. Ciara
claimed that one purpose of networking is

117
to help whatever you’re not good at, to raise that up a notch or to be able to use the
people that have that strength that might be your weakness, and use them to help make
you even more incredible.
Five participants expressed networking as their area of deficiency or weakness and how
networking played a role in regulating their behavior. Brielle transparently said, “I don’t do it
very well. And it’s because I don’t want to ask for things.” She provided greater context for her
avoidance of networking by stating,
It all goes back to me being a Black woman. I’m not sure how people view me or another
race or gender, and so, that hampers my ability to network really effectively to put myself
in greater and different positions of power. But, you know, again, from the other side, I’m
always willing to open doors and make introductions. If I see an opening or a job
opportunity that would be suitable for someone else, I’m always passing it along. And,
so, that’s broadly how I think about and feel about networking.
Monique also admitted that although she mentors young professionals on how to foster their
networks, “I, myself, have not taken advantage of the deep end broad network that I have to
propel me even further. And it’s something that I need to actively work on.” Despite her
opportunities to improve in her networking, Monique expressed how her pride in being “the
first” to accomplish various personal feats impacted her self-efficacy in networking: “I think
there’s like so much pride tied up into, like, I was the first in my family to do this [be a C-suite
officer] … to go to college, to go to high school, to go to law school. Like I’ve gotten through it
myself!”
Three participants—Gaby, Katrina, and Jordan—conveyed that their avoidance of
networking stemmed from their discomfort with formal networking events and activities. In

118
these environments, they felt deficient in their communication skills and building and leveraging
relationships for their professional growth. Gaby said, “Working a room at a networking event is
the most intimidating thing ever. I don’t enjoy that!” Katrina stated, “I’m a people person. I’ve
never been shy. I don’t like networking, per se, or trying to sell myself.” Jordan expressed, “I
have not done a tremendous amount of networking. … It actually feels really uncomfortable to
me.” She elaborated that despite her aversion to networking, her networking skills and
relationships were not derived from networking events. Instead, her networking and sense of
community came from “love and service and transparency and honesty and, you know,
commitment to getting things done and a lot of times with no expectation of getting anything in
return.” Therefore, networking was less of an activity in which Jordan had deficiencies and more
of an extension of her intentionality to connect deeply with others both professionally and
personally. Jordan stated,
So, when I look at my network, it is massive, but it’s not because I went to some
networking event with an idea that there were five people that I had to meet and that
success in that event was meeting those five people, getting their cards, indexing them
and going home. It’s been much more about the small acts of service that are rendered far
and wide and the cultivation of meaningful relationships over time.
These findings reflected that in spite of these five participants’ deficiencies in
networking, they had the self-awareness to identify networking as an opportunity for
improvement. Their responses illustrated how their self-awareness provided them with an
understanding of their networking capabilities. Each participant found satisfaction in leaning into
their strengths (i.e., the communities of friends and colleagues they had built and providing
reciprocal support to those individuals). Further, none of these participants mentioned their

119
networking deficiency as having a negative impact on building ally relationships with Whites or
non-Whites.
Identifying BWCEs’ Barriers to White Allyship
Participants revealed a multitude of barriers preventing them from seeking, accepting, or
obtaining White allyship. Some themes that emerged as barriers to White allyship were related to
significant challenges participants faced now or throughout their careers. The three themes that
emerged were a lack of self-confidence or self-worth, negative perspectives about or negative
experiences with White colleagues, and a lack of organizational support of White allyship.
Six participants attributed a lack of self-confidence or self-worth as a barrier to White
allyship. Brielle commented that BWCEs’ self-confidence comes from others’ acceptance of
BWCEs’ worth. However, she noted that BWCEs’ worth did not necessarily need to come from
White allies’ validation. Brielle remarked, “It’s acceptance for what your skill set is …
sometimes easier to just put your head down and do work and then perhaps have your work
recognized as opposed to having it come from a White ally.” Patrice noted that self-worth as a
CEO is critical but can be lacking and detrimental during a career transition. She stated her
conviction that “You are not your title. You better know that you’re not your title because if you
leave and [lose] your title, … you’re not going to be healthy mentally.” Whitney shared her
perspective on the pros and cons of the concept of Black Girl Magic. She asserted,
I don’t think that Black females are seen as humans. And I don’t mean that because we’re
not humans, but we get Black Girl Magic. It’s not magic! I’m qualified! I mean, it’s cute.
I’ll wear the button too, but that’s not magic! I’ve read a lot of books and went to a lot of
schools, and did a lot of things. I actually did those things! It wasn’t magic! So, while that

120
[Black Girl Magic] was well-meaning, it put a connotation that you’re an exception and
also a showpiece or a trophy representing a thing versus being the thing.
Thirteen participants identified negative experiences with White colleagues as their
greatest barriers to White allyship. Lucinda attributed her barrier to “Perspectives about White
people in general [prevents Black women executives from proactively seeking out White
colleagues as allies in the workplace], depending on what they [Whites] were taught, how they
[Whites] were raised.” Zahra offered an example of a regularly occurring negative experience
she faced with Whites in her organization and how that experience necessitated her to justify her
place in the C-suite:
I think it’s a consistent theme of having to justify your place in every meeting. Like it’s
just, … it’s exhausting. It’s exhausting. Whereas it’s assumed a White man rightly should
be there. There’s always like, “Hmmm, what do you have to add to the conversation?
What are you doing here? Who invited you? Oh, you’re in this meeting?” I’ve had people
say, “Oh, you are in this meeting?” [laughter] That is a constant throughout, and it
doesn’t drop even when your title is Chief. It doesn’t go away. As a matter of fact, it
intensifies.
Harper expressed how these negative experiences create patterns of resistance for BWCEs. She
stated, “I think, as Black women, we put up barriers to allowing people to be our allies. …
We’ve been hurt. There’s no space for grace on our part because we’ve been conditioned to
fight, and not everybody is there to fight.”
Four participants noted a lack of organizational support as a significant barrier to White
allyship. Zahra and Chloe described their experiences of having to leave their C-suite positions

121
in organizations that did not support them, even in instances of blatant prejudice and isolation,
respectively. Octavia reflected,
Oftentimes, you know, a corporate environment doesn’t support that [White allyship] if
you are a Black woman. Either you’ve tried it [White allyship] before, or you’ve seen
some other Black people try it, and it hasn’t resulted in good results.
Also, Ayanna remarked,
The one thing I have never done is internalize someone else’s blind spot as my own issue.
So, for me, I recognize that they are usually operating from an educational deficit and,
therefore, can’t see clearly and can’t see what’s right in front of them, and definitely
would not be able to see the brilliance of the Black woman standing in front of them,
talking about construction in the way that I do. So I have not internalized anything that I
usually see in that way. What I have internalized or have had challenges with is not
having the proper promotion or getting the promotion when I should have gotten the
promotion because someone who doesn’t look like me has an ability to manage my
financial future for no reason other than they are in a management role to me. They have
no context of what my journey has been or what my journey will be in working for them.
They don’t understand who I am as a person. And so, in some ways, that has been the
only portion for me that’s been extremely frustrating, which is why I ended up leaving
and starting my own company so that I could take charge of my own financial future and
my own financial freedom.
Table 5 provides an overview of themes participants discussed as barriers to White
allyship, the number of participants who identified the barriers, and quotes exemplifying the
challenge of the barriers.

122
Table 5
BWCEs’ Barriers to White Allyship
Barriers Number of
participants
Exemplary quote
Biases 15 Ayanna: There’s a bias that some people did not
think that I should be in a position to lead even
though if you look at my male counterparts, I’m
usually more accomplished, … and I was
expected to do more but not necessarily expected
to have the same type of respect and/or job title.
Fear 3 Nicole: Fear! How do you know, if you’re
proactively seeking out allies, how do you know
that they actually are going to be an ally? How
do you know that they are really going to be an
ally? How do you know that they’re not going to
stab you in the back or they’re not going to
actively work against you because you’re asking
for help?
Glass ceiling/glass cliff 3 Harper: A lot of times, Black leaders and female
leaders are put in functions as chiefs without the
authority or resources that everyone else has, and
they’re still expected to perform and deliver
outcomes without the budget, without the staff,
without all of the other benefits that other
functional leaders get. And I think Black men
and Black women are disproportionately put in
those situations.
Historical trauma 8 Gaby: I would say count yourself lucky [if you
have White allyship] because a lot of us
[BWCEs] don’t have it, or when we do, we don’t
notice it because we’re so traumatized from our
history.
Imposter syndrome 6 Lucinda: Often, Black people who have not [gone
to school with White people] have a level of
insecurity that comes screaming out. … You
know, that imposter thing, I don’t fit in, or
somebody’s gonna find me out, or maybe I really
don’t know how to do this, or I haven’t
vacationed here. … All that imposter noise starts
to come out. And that can create a fear of leaning
further in for White allyship.
Lack of organizational
support
3 Chloe: I think in the C-suite, the challenge is really
about, a big part of the job, is relationships and
influence and how you are able to have, you

123
Barriers Number of
participants
Exemplary quote
know, your voice, your opinions, your strategies
actually adopted [by your organization].
Lack of selfconfidence/self-worth
6 Heather: It [interviewing for executive jobs] was
really mentally taxing. To be rejected, in that
way, continuously rejected in that way,
especially when you know you’re good, like, you
know you’re much better than everyone else!
And I was just like, “Why? What’s wrong with
me?”
Lack of Blacks and
Whites understanding
each other
7 Zahra: We don’t understand each other. We don’t
understand Whiteness. They don’t understand
Blackness. It’s lack of understanding.
Microaggressions 2 Zahra: I think one of the things that women of
color tend to do is immediately spend the first 30
days [as a new hire] looking for allies, looking
for who are those people who are going to be
your advocates inside of this organization
because you now know that something will
happen to you. You will experience a
microaggression. … That’s kind of a part of our
knowing as we enter organizations.
Negative perspectives
about or negative
experiences with White
colleagues
13 Harper: We’ve seen so much poor behavior [from
Whites] that the minute someone [a White
person] doesn’t say something quite right, then
we’re like, ‘No!’ It [the allyship] isn’t true.’
Performative allyship 5 Gaby: [It’s] what I would call allyship cosplay.
You want to be an ally, but you’re not really
because as soon as it challenges your worldview
or what has been your worldview, now you got
darts for it! That’s demonstrative, not real. And I
feel like any Black woman in a corporate setting
at any level can sniff that out really fast because
it doesn’t take long!
Stereotypes 4 Chloe: I think that there’s all kinds of stereotypes
that come along with being a Black woman, and
you walk those stereotypes all the time. I think
the challenge has been when I’ve been too strong
or assertive. … Nowadays, they won’t come out
and say, “She’s so angry.” They won’t do that
because they know. But they’ll say every other
word to imply it. They’ll skirt around it. And it’s
like, okay, but my CEO is a White man and said
the same thing, and y’all didn’t call him angry.

124
Barriers Number of
participants
Exemplary quote
Y’all say he’s “frustrated” and “we need to do
better.”
Trust 3 Ayanna: The biggest barrier is trust, and, from our
perspective, really feeling that you can trust that
person and that they’re genuine in their desire to
be an ally.
Underestimation 4 Octavia: I’m often surprising people because
they’re not expecting me to be there as the COO
for this technology company. I believe I use that
[their surprise] to my advantage because I’m
often underestimated because I’m a Black
woman executive. And again, all the context I’m
giving is in tech, the tech industry in Silicon
Valley.
Underrepresentation 3 Harper: I often refer to myself as “the excluded
accidental executive” because I not only was like
fighting the fact that I’m looking up and I don’t
see anybody that looks like me, as a Black
woman, but I also didn’t see anybody who
showed up like me. … For me, it’s about the
personification of representation matters.
Two participants, Ayanna and Chloe, related their experiences of George Floyd’s murder
as a barrier to White allyship. Ayanna’s perspective had an overlapping relationship with the
barrier of historical trauma. She stated,
We [Black people], within our own selves, have all sorts of trauma inside of our family or
that has happened to us personally around a racial issue. Looking just recently at George
Floyd, it was pretty traumatic to see, a Black man just absolutely... Watch the life being
forced out of him was a pretty traumatic experience. So, I think that as a Black woman,
I’m often trying to make sure I’m finding places and spaces that are comforting or that
are easy, that are not extremely challenging. And I know that a person that looks like me
has a more shared experience, and it’s that shared experience that I assume will have a

125
little bit better support system for me and therefore, I won’t often seek White allyship
first.
Chloe shared how her experience of her lack of organizational support and a negative
experience with a White C-suite colleague was magnified by her White CEO’s eventual
reckoning with George Floyd’s murder. In her recount of her story, Chloe described blatant
gender discrimination and public shaming by her organization’s White male COO during her
tenure as the organization’s CFO. She emphasized the lack of support she received from her
White male CEO when she reported the COO. The discrimination resulted in Chloe filing a
complaint that was dismissed by her organization’s attorneys and board, which consequently led
Chloe to willingly exit the organization. Chloe articulated,
I left because the CEO didn’t support me, and he knew that it [the COO’s blatant gender
discrimination and public shaming of me] was wrong. At the end of the day, the CEO ...
we’re friends and we’re still cool. He said to me, “I shouldn’t have let you leave. I should
have been more supportive.” It wasn’t until, believe it or not, he didn’t have that
epiphany until after George Floyd. He was one of those people that called me after
George Floyd and was like, “I’m so sorry!”
Chloe’s experience revealed how a White colleague’s delayed decision to acknowledge
another White colleague’s oppression of a BWCE was eventually provoked by the national
tragedy of George Floyd’s murder. Moreover, Chloe’s experience may illustrate the
disproportionate power dynamics of the C-suite and the marginalization of a BWCE in a White,
male-dominated C-suite. Similarly, Ayanna’s experience conveyed how historical traumas, such
as George Floyd’s murder, shaped her decision to deprioritize White allyship in her corporate

126
environment and seek alignment with individuals who shared aspects of her intersectional
identity.
Despite encountering a multitude of barriers to White allyship, participants noted the
important lessons they learned about their self-efficacy from both positive and negative
experiences. Yvonne mentioned, “It’s [White allyship has] just made me make sure I seek out
support and build that support around me as I go. So, the lessons taught me, like I said, to see
asking for help as a sign of strength. It’s not a weakness.” Octavia commented, “White male
allyship has pushed me into positions that, in my mind, I wasn’t ready for, wasn’t qualified for.
But they knew that my White male counterparts were all going for it, and they had the same
qualifications.” Vivian stated, “It [White allyship] taught me to prepare. So, being prepared with
confidence and just understanding how [White] leaders think and what to do.” Shaunice also
revealed how White allyship has taught her a lesson about herself and the significance of
BWCEs’ representation in corporate America. She articulated,
I’ve always been, I feel, in my view, an empathetic leader, but I’m learning a different
muscle around empathy and how to express it and also how to try to teach it. I’m also
getting very, very clear—and I don’t know if this is a learning about myself—but it’s like
an aha, how important it is to get more of us in the CEO seat.
Leaning Into Your Values, Networking, and Reciprocal Relationships
Participants shared their thoughts regarding the advice they would offer to other Black
women who experience White allyship in corporate America. The main theme that emerged was
leaning in or embracing White allyship. Lucinda encouraged, “Lean into it [White allyship].
Don’t be afraid of it. Understand it. Spend time understanding it.” Similarly, Nicole advised,
“Lean into it [White allyship]. Trust, but verify.” Three subthemes emerged from this theme of

127
leaning in: leaning into one’s individual values, leaning into networking, and leaning into
reciprocal relationships (i.e., gaining allyship by simultaneously being allies to others based on
mutual respect and solidarity).
Values
Three participants recommended that Black women prioritize their values as they
navigate White allyship. Shaunice emphasized, “It [White allyship] starts with self.” She
explained that along her career journey to the C-suite, one of the most important actions she took
was
getting really clear on who I am and my values because until you are really clear on that,
you’re going to allow the world to shape your journey versus you being the person that is
really driving your journey and being very, very clear on what you want.
Harper expressed a similar suggestion: “Be very, very clear on who you are and what you do
well because performance opens a lot more doors and gives a lot more grace than almost
anything” and “Be very clear on your value and your values because that will help you filter all
of these dynamics.” Whitney advised Black women to be self-reflective and authentic in their
search for and embrace of White allyship. She said,
Constantly kind of keep a mirror up to yourself, right? Constantly. Look at yourself, and
you see yourself before you allow the world to qualify you. Surround yourself with
people who hold up the various visions of you. Show up first authentically enough as
yourself, who you are as you are, with the confidence in tow so that if you do have an
opportunity to exchange with someone that might be willing to come along with you, that
you know that they’ve seen you. And trust how it is that it makes you feel.

128
Ayanna recommended that Black women be cognizant of their strengths and mindful of
the White ally’s journey as Black women try to decipher the authenticity of White allyship they
encounter. She shared,
Believe in your superpower. Believe in the secret sauce that you have within yourself
that’s allowed you to successfully navigate your way to the C-suite or to learn what
you’ve learned and to take that input data and create something more magical or more
financially rewarding or more innovative or more creative than just the average person
and seeing that. So, believe in yourself in a way that no one else can. I think that in
looking for White allyship, you will often have to find, you know, … there’s a saying
around how you’ve got to kiss several frogs before you can find your prince. The same
thing is true with finding an ally, finding a White ally specifically. Some of them may
appear to be that there’ll be supportive and may appear to be able to withstand the
challenges that may come their way once they have supported you. Know that their
ability to move you forward may sometimes feel to them as if they are stifling their own
work or minimizing their own ability to get ahead. And, so, in that, recognizing their
journey to be your ally is important, not that you shouldn’t demand it. But just know that
it is important in understanding that they, too, are navigating as they try to help you.
Two participants, Darlene and Shelby, offered words of caution to Black women. Darlene
advised them “to tread lightly, to understand your landscape and understand the players and that
you don’t have to have them [Whites] as your allies.” Shelby advised, “Network, network,
network!” but she also cautioned, “Don’t let your guard down. For people that you can trust, let
your guard down.”

129
Networking
In addition to Shelby, eight other participants stressed the importance of leaning into
networking. Brielle instructed, “Do the networking outside of work.” She elaborated on why
networking was critical for Black women by saying,
I think that White people and Black people approach work in different ways. And I think
that a lot of times, Black people go to work and then cut it off, and then you have your
home life. But White people view it as one big extension, as a continuation, and
sometimes we’re traumatized, and we want to cut that off, but they’re not traumatized at
work, so they don’t have to cut it off. They don’t have to. They don’t want to be someone
else at home. So, I would say to engage outside of work as well as inside of work.
Similarly, Zahra advised,
Don’t be afraid to connect with executives higher up or whoever you have access to that
is at the executive level. … I know that Black people, women of color, we’re very
guarded when we go into organizations for self-preservation reasons, and I get it. But
open up. Choose a few to open up to.
Reciprocal Relationships
Four participants pointed out the significance of Black women leaning into reciprocal
relationships with White allies. They highlighted that allyship is a mutual relationship in which
both parties can create meaningful social change and a more inclusive work environment by
working together in genuine partnership. These positive outcomes are possible when BWCEs
and White allies are accountable to each other and are committed to listening and learning from
each other. Yvonne said, “I would tell people to give others the benefit of the doubt. Seek it
[White allyship] out and start by offering to help and support others first so that you model the

130
behavior you want back.” Gaby stated, “Cultivate those relationships and figure out how you can
also be an ally for others.” Monique shared advice that reflected the reciprocal nature of a Black
woman’s relationship with a White ally. She advised,
To trust in ourselves that the so-called allies have just as much to gain from us as we have
to get from them. And once we realize it becomes easier for those of us, especially a lot
of Black women, to realize that it is a reciprocal relationship. And I think we have to also
be very strategic and thoughtful in what we need from our allies, when and how. But it is
a relationship we should be nurturing.
Patrice was the only participant who offered advice related to reciprocal relationships,
specifically in the context of Black Lives Matter and George Floyd’s murder. One critical piece
of counsel she provided was “Figure out those things that you can be helpful with without
someone actually having to ask.” She elaborated,
Think about how you can sort of become the go-to person for people to ask things that
might make other people uncomfortable, and even if it makes you uncomfortable. Pretend
that it doesn’t and try to explore why they’re asking the question. So my example for that
would be Black Lives Matter. Why do Black lives matter? Not all lives matter? A lot of
us went through that, right? George Floyd. ... That [Black Lives Matter] is not a
replacement of all lives. It’s to say, we [Black people] are feeling hurt that Black lives are
not valued in the way that we believe they should be. You can’t be preachy. So learn
those things. Understand that relationships are just not built on business, KPIs,
performance, and financials. They’re just not! And … just make it intentional that you
frequently think about and ask other people about your level of self-awareness and how
you come across. This is not the angry black woman. So no, nothing like that. This is:

131
Am I aware of what I contribute and where I need to, what my what my weak spots are?
Really seeing things through a different lens and forcing yourself to see things through a
different lens is just critical. It’s critical and it’s one of the things that is very hard for
Black people because our narrative … because there’s such inequality.
Patrice’s advice underscored her belief that as society continues to suffer from civil
unrest triggered by anti-Blackness and racial oppression, Black women may be able to benefit
from reciprocal relationships by leaning into conversation about topics such as Black Lives
Matter. While this action may be risky and controversial, it may positively provoke corporate
executives—including White allies and would-be allies—to openly engage in these discussions
and embrace the reality that authentic relationships are not strictly based on business or personal
gain. Rather, they are based in mutual respect for diversity and empathy for another individual’s
lived experience. Furthermore, as Patrice suggested, this action may provoke Black women to
enhance their self-awareness despite the historical traumas of Black people’s inequality.
Figure 9 is a word cloud generated through Qualtrics. This word cloud represents
participants’ most commonly used words and phrases when discussing advice they would give to
other Black women in their experiences with White allyship in corporate America. The most
boldly colored words represent the words the participants mentioned most frequently in their
responses. By contrast, the lighter colors represent the least frequently articulated words.

132
Figure 9
Participant Voices: Advice for Black Women Regarding White Allyship in Corporate America
Twenty-four participants answered this question regarding their advice on how Black
women can navigate White allyship in corporate America. According to Qualtrics, the emotions
represented in participants’ responses included fear, anger, frustration, love, sadness, trust, and a
mix of all emotions. Also, according to Qualtrics, sentiment scores were classified as
predominantly very negative (nine participants, or 53%) and negative (five participants, or 29%).
These sentiments were largely demonstrated in the word “don’t.” Although negative in
connotation, the context of “don’t” for many participants was in relation to participants’
recommendation for Black women not to hesitate to seek White allyship in their organizations.
Chloe advised, “Don’t give up! But actually, also know what you won’t settle for.” Justine
stated, “Don’t be afraid to seek those White male allies.” Lucinda offered, “Don’t be afraid of it
[White allyship]. Understand it. Spend time understanding it. Not every White person is going to

133
be an ally, and not every White person is going to not be an ally.” In contrast to these statements,
however, Darlene was the only participant who gave cautionary advice using the word “don’t.”
She commented,
I would tell them [Black women in corporate America] to tread lightly, to understand
your landscape and understand the players and that you don’t have to have them [Whites]
as your allies. You do have to be able to work with them as your colleagues. You don’t
need to shift that relationship someplace that’s never going to work for you because
they’re never going to care or support you the way you need to feel supported. But my
advice is just to do your job. Show up! Be better than the person sitting next to you that’s
doing this same job. Be proficient in your space. Be professional! If they walk around
with purple hair, you can’t. You can’t. If they come in 10 minutes late, you can’t. Be
there. Be who you are. Prepare for the next job, not the job you’re sitting in today. And
do that consistently, and consistency is important. And don’t go in there telling them all
your business!
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
The research findings for Research Question 2 illustrated four critical points. First, as
participants ascended to and aimed to sustain their C-suite positions, self-efficacy played an
integral role in their responses to White allyship. Participants articulated self-awareness of their
intersectionality as a factor that led them to embrace the role and responsibilities of C-suite
pioneers. They acknowledged the strengths of pioneering—power and privilege—and the
multitude of paradoxes associated with being the first, only, or one of few BWCEs in their
corporate spaces.

134
Second, as participants leveraged networking as a career resource, they noted that selfpreservation enabled them to regulate their behaviors. Described in the findings as a trifecta,
participants indicated that developing strategic relationships—including White allyship—
required their attention to three key elements of networking: (a) the genius of networking outside
their comfort zones with strangers, (b) emotional support present in a community of close
colleagues and friends, and (c) conscious determination of their networking deficiencies so that
they could continuously improve their networking skills, to ultimately obtain the White allyship
they desired or needed.
Third, participants highlighted that the journey to accomplish this outcome encompassed
several barriers. These barriers ranged from White colleagues’ biases and BWCEs’ fear of White
allyship to Whites’ underestimation of Black women and BWCEs’ underrepresentation. The
impact of these barriers included self-efficacious behaviors that reflected participants’
convictions in their capacity to seek and build support networks, courageously pursue
challenging positions outside their comfort zones, seek and demonstrate alignment with
influential colleagues, and strategically create opportunities for increased representation of
BWCEs in corporate America.
Lastly, participants advised that navigating career networks to advance to or sustain Csuite positions required themselves and Black women in pursuit of C-suite positions to lean into
White allyship. These actions specifically necessitated that the participants and aspiring BWCEs
fully valued their values, leveraged networking as a critical career resource, and fostered
reciprocal relationships of solidarity and support to receive White allyship and offer allyship to
others.

135
Conclusion
The qualitative findings of the study interviews convey how each participant’s
perceptions of White allyship influenced her ability to ascend to and sustain her C-suite position.
The findings were grounded in the study’s conceptual framework, amplified each participant’s
narrative, and addressed the research questions. The findings highlighted the synergy between
BWCEs’ intersectionality, self-efficacy, and networking skills, which were influenced by their
personal assessments of White allyship. Moreover, the findings shed new insights into the
opportunities and challenges involved in BWCEs’ efforts to navigate White allyship in corporate
America and the positive and negative outcomes of their choices.

136
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to center the voices of
BWCEs in Fortune 500 companies and other for-profit companies to amplify their lived
experiences of underrepresentation and perspectives o White allyship throughout their careers.
Grounded in a conceptual framework composed of BFT, SCT, and Granovetter’s (1973, 1983)
theory of social networking, the study explored how BWCEs drew on their intersectionality, selfefficacy, and networking skills to assess the potential of White allyship to improve or hinder
their representation in C-suite positions. In addition, the study inquired about their
recommendations for how Black women can navigate White allyship in corporate America as
they ascend to and sustain C-suite positions.
Through the qualitative narratives of 25 BWCEs, the study findings suggested that they
consider White allyship, if or when they observed it in their corporate environments, to be
action-oriented, nonperformative, risk-taking behavior most prevalently demonstrated by White
men compared to White women and critical for overcoming Black women’s systemic C-suite
underrepresentation. Also, the findings suggested that White allyship can influence BWCE’s
self-efficacy by affecting how they leverage their agency and optimize their values and
networking to address or overcome barriers to White allyship in corporate America. The
following research questions offered a deep understanding of BWCEs’ lived experiences of
underrepresentation and White allyship along their career journeys:
1. How do BWCEs assess White allyship as a resource through their advancement to
and sustainment in C-suite positions?
2. How does White allyship influence BWCEs’ self-efficacy in navigating career
networks to advance to or sustain C-suite positions?

137
Summary of Findings
Chapter Four presented the study’s interview findings. The data indicated that four
themes emerged for each of the two research questions (Table 3). For Research Question 1, the
first theme was that the interviewees assessed White allyship as a risky, actionable behavior
instead of Whites’ performative, self-serving gestures. Second, they considered White allyship a
vital resource that could redress historical barriers to their systemic C-suite marginalization and
enhance their access to and ability to thrive in their positions. Third, they assessed White allyship
as most readily espoused by BWCEs’ White male colleagues due to White men’s historical
dominance in corporate C-suite leadership. Lastly, BWCEs consciously assessed the authenticity
of White allyship based on its existence and definability throughout their career experiences.
Shaunice encapsulated the findings of Research Question 1 when she asserted, “Being [a White]
ally isn’t about checking the box. It is really about wanting to have a really deep understanding
of my perspective and making sure that I and my community feel seen.”
For Research Question 2, the interview findings highlighted how the presence or absence
of White allyship influenced the interviewees’ self-efficacy in navigating their career networks.
The first theme was that when present, White allyship rendered BWCEs pioneers of power,
privilege, and paradox. Second, whether existent or lacking, White allyship affected their selfefficacy by mandating that participants optimize the networking trifecta (genius, community, and
deficiency). Third, White allyship required participants to consciously identify and manage the
many barriers to it. Not surprisingly, these barriers made some participants distrust White
allyship and become hesitant or resistant to acknowledging, seeking out, or embracing it.
Consequently, as revealed by the fourth theme, BWCEs noted that feelings of uncertainty and
fear of White allyship’s opportunities and challenges required them to increase their self-efficacy

138
and reassess their beliefs in their ability to navigate White allyship. Participants subsequently
advised Black women executives to lean vulnerably into their values, networking skills, and the
potential of reciprocal relationships with White allies. Despite their recommendations to “lean
in,” Jordan’s remark reflected the overall findings regarding Research Question 2, specifically
the tension between White allyship and BWCEs’ self-efficacy as they navigate career networks.
Jordan emphasized,
When we have to make decisions about who makes more, who gets promoted, who gets
more added to their remit of responsibilities, the answer to that is infrequently who
enabled more people to win, right? The answer is most frequently: Who won, right? And
so, I think that the expectations of [White] allyship are in conflict in a lot of ways with
the energy that spawns from competitive, capitalist environments. And I feel that stress
and that tension every day. One hundred or 200 or 300 years from now, when someone
who looks like me [a Black woman], who may have won for the last 300 years, … and I
see myself as making up for 400 years of injustice, but maybe they [that Black woman]
will be in a winning position. I suspect that it would be really hard for him, her, or them
to also create space for other voices because I think we [people in general] enjoy
winning.
Chapter Five expounds upon the eight themes of Chapter Four in alignment with the
literature review. The four related areas of focus discussed in Chapter Five are that (a) a lack of
White allyship detracts from BWCEs’ C-suite attainment and sustainment, (b) BWCEs
constantly have to prove themselves, (c) intersectionality and networking are BWCEs’
superpowers, and (d) BWCEs are resilient insiders.

139
Lack of White Allyship Detracts BWCEs’ C-Suite Ascension and Sustainment
Based on the interview findings, a lack of White allyship significantly detracted from the
interviewees’ ascension to and sustainment of their C-suite positions. Brown and Ostrove (2013)
and Erskine et al. (2021) asserted that Black women’s C-suite underrepresentation can be
associated with a lack of White allyship. Although participants expressed that White allyship was
not the catalyst or sole contributor to their career success, their narratives exposed that a lack of
White allyship in the presence of White men in corporate leadership spaces perpetuated systemic
C-suite barriers. This systemic dominance, coupled with the history of Black women’s
marginalized outsider within status (Collins, 1986) in corporate C-suite positions, frequently
undercut or diminished participants’ career progression. Nkomo and Al Ariss (2014) emphasized
the historical importance of White privilege and Whiteness as a resource for access to workplace
power. Ultimately, when BWCEs’ careers lacked White allyship, their C-suite ascension and
sustainment representation decreased, and White male dominance persisted.
Some participants stated that their lack of White allyship stemmed from their lack of
skill or will to vulnerably invest in building networks of relationships with strangers who do not
look like them outside of their immediate circle or intimate community of friends and familiar
colleagues. These behaviors placed them in positions of network deficiency and career
stagnation. Granovetter (1973) asserted that, in career advancement, weak-tie networks and their
associated emotional investments and transmission of critical, time-sensitive information are
more valuable than strong-tie networks. Beckwith et al. (2016) further proposed that for Black
women to ascend the corporate ladder, they should not rely on mentoring or sponsorship alone.
Instead, networking was the most critical career resource. These findings underscored the
research of Twine (2018), which concluded that Black women professionals must strategically

140
employ networking and their social capital—including White allies—to secure C-suite positions
in corporate environments that continue to marginalize them.
Despite participants’ overwhelming sense of pride in being Black and female, an absence
of White allyship due to the inability to define or observe it in their workplaces led some
participants to form self-imposed barriers to White allyship. Bandura (2023) noted that selfefficacy affects career development, and perseverance can change inequitable workplace systems
(Bandura, 1997). However, the lack of White allyship undermined participants’ self-efficacy and
often made them doubt their ability to advance, thrive, or sustain their C-suite position. Zumaeta
(2019) emphasized loneliness and isolation as socioemotional costs of C-suite leadership. These
findings aligned with participants’ hesitancy in seeking out White allies, distrust of or
disillusionment with White allyship, and self-reliance for their C-suite attainment or sustainment.
Ultimately, participants conveyed how their weakened self-efficacy challenged them even more
to sustain their C-suite tenure, exit their organizations without suffering reputational damage, and
transition to new C-suite positions in other organizations.
The lack of White allyship deprived participants of fulfilling certain milestones along
their career trajectory and their organizations of the benefits of diversity and inclusion. Crenshaw
(1989) found that “gaining awareness of intersectionality includes understanding how race,
gender, and additional intersecting identities may be utilized to inhibit or promote a collective
sense of ‘we’ in organizations” (as cited in Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019, p. 321). As such, the lack
of White allyship and its antecedents, behaviors, motivators, detractors, and impact diminished
BWCEs’ contributions to the collective we at their organizations (Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019).
The notions of tokenization (Cook & Glass, 2014; Holder et al., 2015) and White saviorism
(Karnaze et al., 2023; M. Williams & Sharif, 2021) emerged for some participants. These notions

141
reinforced Paikeday and Qosja’s (2023) finding that BWCEs are largely selected for functional
C-suite roles not aligned with CEO succession plans. For that reason, the lack of White allyship
causes some BWCEs’ authority to be more symbolic than actual (Allen & Lewis, 2016).
BWCEs Constantly Have to Prove Themselves
Although not unanimously articulated, some participants expressed that experiences of
constantly having to prove themselves in their workplace influenced their assessments of White
allyship. The majority of study participants noted that along their ascension to and tenure in the
C-Suite, their self-identity as Black and female subjected them to numerous states of scrutiny,
particularly from White colleagues. This finding is consistent with research by LeanIn.Org and
McKinsey & Company (2022), which showed that the experience of heavy scrutiny as an only is
most prevalent among Black women compared to individuals of all other races and genders in
the workplace.
Allen and Lewis (2016) stressed the problem with Black women’s intersectionality as
“the impossibility of unraveling their interwoven statuses into a single-stranded understanding of
race or gender, for example, means that these must all be jointly analyzed; their lived
experiences cannot be understood or extrapolated through the experiences of other groups”
(Allen & Lewis, 2016, p. 4). Some participants acknowledged that being the BWCE in their
workplaces made them feel the need to take overt, extreme actions to prove themselves. For
example, some participants discussed their need to learn the language of White men, learn the
quirks of White people, be overly prepared for meetings—often with the coaching of White
colleagues—and have to reluctantly resort to being a Mammy or Sapphire to prove their worth.
These actions reflected Collins’ concept of controlling images that “represent the ultimate Other
who define the presence of White or male subjects” (Patton, 2000, as cited in Allen & Lewis,

142
2016, p. 111). These actions also illustrated Allen and Lewis’ (2016) assessments of BWCEs’
borrowed power and the notion that it is predicated on how well BWCEs assimilate to their
corporate environments or how confidently Whites view them as representatives of their
organization’s culture and objectives.
It was not surprising that the majority of participants shared detailed narratives of C-suite
microaggressions as examples of having to prove themselves. C. Sue et al. (2007) described
microaggressions as microassaults, microinsults, microinvalidation, and environmental
microaggressions occurring at the macro-level. Participants shared instances of blatant
mansplaining by White male colleagues, underestimation or questioning of the legitimacy of
their leadership skill and intellect by White colleagues and subordinates, and sabotage by both
White and non-White female colleagues who perceived participants as competitive threats or
unqualified novices. Microaggressions created adverse psychological effects for some
participants, including stereotype threat. Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) confirmed a
relationship between Black women’s identity and stereotype threat, resulting in imposter
syndrome, intersectional hypervisibility, and intersectional invisibility. Participants underscored
these findings through their expressed needs for resources such as prayer groups with their Black
female colleagues, a personal board of directors or advisors, psychological therapy, and
participation in Black employee resource groups. As Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) and
A. N. Smith et al. (2019) noted, BWCEs intersectional identity warranted their employ of various
strategies to address the triple jeopardy of being Black, female, and a C-suite leader.
Intersectionality and Networking Are BWCEs’ Superpowers
As demonstrated by participants’ narratives, they had to overcome a multitude of
challenges to acquire their C-suite positions and continuously persevere to sustain them. Despite

143
the odds, the interviewees revealed that their intersectionality and networking were their
superpowers. Most participants leveraged a combination of networking with strong ties and weak
ties who identified as White allies and people of color. Tibbetts and Parks Smith (2023)
highlighted the necessity of employees of color prioritizing the securement of workplace mentors
with the same and different identities to succeed and thrive in their professions. McCluney and
Rabelo (2019) also concluded that Black women’s conditions of visibility in corporate
workplaces, resulting from the intersections of their identities, affect how Black women view,
acquire, and exercise power. For these reasons, it is no surprise that even some study participants
who had an aversion to networking still excelled in forming strong emotional connections and
intellectual exchanges with White allies, C-suite colleagues, and employees internal and external
to their organizations.
While the literature review mentions researchers’ conflicting arguments regarding the
pros and cons of BWCEs’ Superwoman role (Woods-Giscombé, 2010) and Black Girl Magic
(Hoover, 2021; Lamar-Becker, 2022), participants’ superpowers of networking and self-efficacy
should not be downplayed. Though not supernatural in the literal sense, Nixon (2017) found that
BWCEs’ skills in these areas have been tremendous assets to their personal and professional
well-being. M. Bell et al. (2023) emphasized that the intersectionality of Black businesswomen
compels them to have exemplary self-efficacy in their career development and a remarkably
increased sense of motivation in networking compared to their advantaged White and male
counterparts. Similarly, Hyman et al. (2022) claimed that Black women’s intersectionality
requires them to exhibit a significant amount of self-regulation as they repeatedly combat
emotional and cognitive resistance to their intersectionality in spaces of White dominance.
Participants’ narratives exemplified this claim as accurate. Participants shared stories of their

144
tempered radicalism and emotional restraint even amid some of the most severe, psychologically
exhausting workplace challenges and networking scenarios, including White Knighting, White
saviorism, colorism, misogyny, sexual harassment, and workplace segregation.
BWCEs Are Resilient Insiders
As demonstrated in participants’ interviews, BWCEs are resilient. Roberts et al. (2018)
highlighted resilience as a virtue that Black women rely on more than other racial or ethnic
groups due to the frequency with which Black women are forced to tackle challenges and
setbacks due to their intersectionality. Whether participants experienced the benefits or
challenges of White allyship or combated daily doses of adversity rooted in their intersectionality
and the non-diverse and non-inclusive states of their work environments, they adapted,
recovered, and grew stronger. Studies conducted by Holder et al. (2015), Lewis et al. (2013), and
Nixon (2017) underscored resilience and coping as BWCEs’ means to strengthen and maintain
social and psychological support in corporate environments. Despite the derailments and plateaus
of their career journeys, participants highlighted their abilities to keep going, recover from
emotional marathons, and leverage strengths gained along the way to become more innovative
and creative in their C-suite positions.
Through their resilience, participants acquired the advantage of an insider perspective of
their organization, unlike any other colleague. Erskine et al. (2021) revealed that despite
BWCEs’ pathology as outsiders within, they adopted coping and survival strategies that
advanced their insider knowledge of myriad phenomena. As participants noted, this insider status
afforded them frequent exposure to and expert knowledge of White privilege and White fragility.
Cook and Glass (2014) claimed that BWCEs’ insider status gave them the ability to inform and
advance DEI policies in ways other C-suite executives could not. These exposures, though

145
traumatizing and oppressive, positioned participants to be much more than outsiders within the
C-suite. Instead, as Thomas (2019) showed, BWCEs secured the advantages of being adaptable
in diverse settings, cutting-edge in personal branding and organizational problem-solving, and
inclusive approaches to organizational strategy. Resilience and insider status distinguished
participants as the personification of their ancestors’ wildest dreams and the exemplars deserving
increased representation in corporate America’s C-suites.
Recommendations for Practice
This research aims to contribute to actionable recommendations for BWCEs and Black
women pursuing C-suite positions in corporate America by centering their voices and
understanding the challenges of their lived experiences of White allyship. To increase Black
women’s C-suite representation in corporate America and to enhance the corporate workplace
experience for their ascension to and sustainment in C-suite positions, this study emphasizes how
BWCEs assess White allyship as a career resource. This study also emphasizes how White
allyship influences BWCEs’ self-efficacy as they navigate career networks throughout their
journeys to and in corporate America’s C-suites.
This study’s findings and recommendations expose individual and organizational factors
for effectively facilitating Black women’s ability to obtain C-suite positions and thrive in them.
The recommendations for practice highlight BWCEs’ perceptions of White allyship and the
inherent challenges their experience in the C-suite environment, given intersectionality, selfefficacy, and the crucial need to network with individuals who do not share their identities or
lived experiences. The recommendations for practice also set forth a transformative approach to
how corporate America can create and sustain cultures of trust and inclusive work environments
that capture and center Black women’s executive leadership development, protect them from the

146
deleterious effects of intersectional phenomena, and ensure that they have access to impactful
resources to obtain and sustain C-suite positions. Table 6 highlights eight recommendations
aligned with the study’s research questions. Recommendations are explicitly offered for the key
stakeholders in BWCEs’ experience of White allyship along their career paths: BWCEs, White
allies, and corporations.
Table 6
Recommendations for BWCEs, White Allies, and Organizations in Corporate America
Stakeholder Recommendation Research question
BWCEs Recommendation 1: Strategically assess White
allyship for its authenticity and alignment with
BWCEs’ needs.
1
Recommendation 2: In relationships with White
allies, regulate self-efficacy through resilience.
1 and 2
Recommendation 3: Maximize networking to
withstand negative workplace experiences and
thrive.
1
White allies Recommendation 4: Sponsor and coach Black
women along their C-suite trajectory.
2
Recommendation 5: Collaborate with BWCEs and
corporate leaders to develop and implement
organizational strategies that address BWCEs’
barriers.
2
Organizations in
corporate
America
Recommendation 6: Acknowledge and address
anti-Black and anti-woman behaviors in all levels
of the organization, including the C-suite.
2
Recommendation 7: Create and implement
strategies for intersectional awareness and
allyship of BWCEs.
2
Recommendation 8: Create organizational
accountability for Black women’s advancement
to and sustainment in C-suite positions.
2

147
Recommendation 1: Strategically Assess White Allyship
BWCEs can gain the White allyship they desire or need by strategically assessing White
allyship. This strategic assessment entails that BWCEs and their would-be White allies
understand oppressive systems and continuously examine how to build authentic relationships
that amplify BWCEs’ power and influence through White allies’ privilege (Suyemoto et al.,
2021). In strategically assessing White allyship, BWCEs can also leverage empirical definitions
or analyses of of White allyship (Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019; M. Williams & Sharif, 2021) in the
context of social justice (Love, 2019; Utt, 2013), potential pitfalls of White allies (Spanierman &
Smith, 2017), and Erskine and Bilimoria’s (2019) conceptual model of antiracist White allyship.
These resources may help BWCEs assess what authentic White allyship is and is not, particularly
given some participants’ narratives of White allyship as nonexistent or undefinable due to their
limited workplace observations, distrust, and lack of personal experience with White allyship.
Recommendation 2: Regulate Self-Efficacy Through Resilience
Regulating self-efficacy in White ally relationships is critical for Black women’s
advancement and sustainment of executive leadership positions (Hyman et al., 2022). As
BWCEs regulate their self-efficacy, they must become keenly attuned to their selection,
cognitive, motivational, and affective processes by practicing self-reflection, mindfulness and
meditation, seeking feedback, and social learning (Bandura, 2023). They must also make efforts
to self-monitor, self-instruct, set goals, and self-reinforce (Hyman et al., 2022). This study’s
findings indicated that the capacity to temper personal biases about White people and vulnerably
lean into relationships with influencers or decision-makers who were not Black or female were
powerful experiences of self-efficacy. Participants valued White allies’ offering of career
support, yet they did not disregard their own intellect or efforts to succeed. However, as pioneers

148
of power, privilege, and paradox, participants showed that regulating their self-efficacy in White
ally relationships is challenging. Participants frequently relied on their communities of Black
women executives, other Black professionals, and talk therapy to remain resilient. These actions
enable BWCEs to overcome obstacles and setbacks resulting from intersectionality (Roberts et
al., 2018). By regulating their self-efficacy through resilience, BWCEs can strategically control
their career resources and environments, analyze others’ perceptions of them, and identify
people—in addition to White allies—who can affirm their C-suite performance and business
contributions.
Recommendation 3: Maximize Networking
The ability to maximize networking to leverage strategic relationships and vital career
connections is critical for Black women aspiring to advance to or sustain C-suite positions
(Roberts et al., 2018). Since constructing a leader identity is a fundamentally relational endeavor,
BWCEs’ networks play a significant role in their efforts to ascend to and sustain their C-suite
positions. Networking can regulate information flow, increase the speed or likelihood of
promotions, and offer people valuable feedback and emotional support (Granovetter, 1983).
Maximizing networks entails that BWCEs nurture deep informal connections with individuals
who share their identities and those who do not (Tibbetts & Parks Smith, 2023). Participants’
narratives show how gaining counsel from networks of White allies or access to limited career
resources was vital to overcoming bureaucratic policies and mitigating career-limiting challenges
along their C-suite trajectory. Participants’ consistent efforts to build the depth or quality of their
social networks enabled them to take on stretch opportunities, acquire high visibility positions,
and drive business results that initially appeared unattainable. Also, if a C-suite position or
company stagnated a BWCE’s growth, participants activated their networks, a “personal board of

149
advisors,” or a strategically curated “corner” to identify and secure new C-suite positions. These
intimate networks provide BWCEs with social capital and power currency to become
empowered agents (Erskine et al., 2021). By maximizing networking, BWCEs can ultimately
master the relational dynamics of their organizations, thrive, and facilitate more Black women’s
entry into C-suite positions (Spreitzer et al., 2012).
Recommendation 4: Sponsor and Coach Black Women Along Their C-suite Trajectory
In alignment with the recommendation for BWCEs to maximize networking, White allies
can activate BWCEs’ ability to obtain social capital and power currency when they sponsor and
coach Black women along their C-suite trajectory (Erskine et al., 2021). Corporate development
networks (e.g,, mentorship programs, leadership development programs, professional
associations, affinity groups, and Employee Resource Group) provide multiple opportunities for
White allies to engage or collaborate with Black women pursuing C-suite positions and with
BWCEs who aspire to thrive in them have been observed as crucial approaches for BWCE
development (Kim & Kuo, 2015). White allies can facilitate increased representation of BWCEs
and potentially redress inequalities such as Black women’s wealth gaps and socioeconomic and
sociopolitical immobility through formal and informal sponsorship (Erskine et al., 2021).
Through coaching, White allies can provide developmental interventions to Black women,
offering them deeper self-awareness and enhanced self-efficacy. Participants noted these benefits
of sponsorship and coaching when they expressed how White allies impacted how they
navigated their C-suite journeys.
Recommendation 5: Collaborate With BWCEs and Corporate Leaders
White allies can work in solidarity with BWCEs by collaborating with them and other
corporate leaders to develop and implement organizational strategies that address Black women

150
employees’ C-suite barriers (Cyr et al., 2021). This three-way collaboration is essential, as
opposed to White allies’ independent efforts or individual outreach to corporate leaders, because
White allies can only demonstrate authentic allyship when they are informed by the insights of
people of color (Boutte & Jackson, 2014). In collaboration with BWCEs and other corporate
leaders, White allies can identify and prioritize strategies that simultaneoulsy support BWCEs’
representation and organizations’ related DEI initiatives, policies, and practices (Kendall et al.,
2021). As many participants articulated, it is essential to note that White allies engage in selfreflexivity to avoid behaving in harmful or paternalistic ways that undermine and dehumanize
BWCEs or reinscribe White dominance and center the White privilege of White allies.
Therefore, effective collaboration with BWCEs and corporate leaders entails that White allies
implement and evaluate this collaboration as a continual process of ally development instead of a
quest to arrive at a permanent place of ally competence (Spanierman & Smith, 2017).
Recommendation 6: Acknowledge Systemic and Endemic Anti-Black and Anti-woman
Behaviors
To create equity in the C-suite for Black women employees, organizations must
acknowledge systemic and endemic anti-Black and anti-woman behaviors to employ effective
responses (Cyr et al., 2021). Acknowledging these behaviors requires organizations to challenge
dominant discourses around gendered racism (Cyr et al., 2021) and admit the disparity and
inequity of BWCEs’ representation (Erskine et al., 2021). To these ends, organizations must shift
from reactive measures such as anti-bias training to proactive measures that prevent BWCEs’
underrepresentation from occurring in the first place (Roberts & Mayo, 2019). For example,
organizations should increase the number of Black women in C-suite succession plans. Also,
organizations must demonstrate advocacy for change, even in the face of institutionalized

151
resistance (Agocs, 1997). Some actions organizations can implement to address systemic and
endemic anti-Black and anti-woman behaviors include promoting the creation and cooperation of
allies for current and aspiring BWCEs; presenting sound evidence and arguments to corporate
boards for BWCEs’ increased representation; leveraging existing legislation, regulations, and
organizational policies and practices to effect Black women’s ascension to and sustainment in Csuite positions; mobilizing politically by seeking external legislative or regulatory support for
BWCEs’ representation; and building new functions or roles in organizations that embody
advocacy for BWCEs’ representation. (Agocs, 1997). These actions are crucial for organizations
to start processes of redressing behaviors that perpetuate the status quo of White C-suite
predominance and BWCEs’ persistent underrepresentation.
Recommendation 7: Create and Implement Strategies for Intersectional Awareness and
Allyship
To address systemic and endemic anti-Black and anti-woman behaviors, organizations
must create and implement strategies for intersectional awareness and allyship. A focus on
intersectional awareness mandates that organizations integrate cognizance of institutionalized
racism, patriarchy, and Black women employees’ multifaceted identities into organizational
practices, policies, and leadership structures (Erskine et al., 2021). Therefore, organizations must
shift from identity-blind ideologies (e.g., color blindness, gender neutrality, assimilation, and
meritocracies) to behaviors that consciously elevate intersectionality (Singleton, 2022).
Similarly, a focus on allyship requires that allies and would-be allies understand how gendered
racism is normalized and codified in organizational culture, practices, and policies (Boutte &
Jackson, 2014). Therefore, organizations must set the expectation that allyship of Black women
must not simply involve adding diversity to existing systems. Instead of utilizing this cosmetic,

152
additive approach, organizations must courageously transform C-suite inequities by intentionally
dismantling legacies of White dominance, starting in the C-suite (Spanierman & Smith, 2017).
There are at least three strategies that organizations can execute to promote intersectional
awareness and allyship. First, organizations can equip and position White men to lead DEI
initiatives related to Black women’s needs (Roberts & Mayo, 2019). This recommendation does
not imply that formal White ally programs or training should be developed or that White men
should be prioritized for DEI roles. This is an important consideration, as study findings show
that participants consider authentic allyship as that which is not performative, declarative, or
unauthentic in its purpose or objectives. Therefore, instead of developing Whie ally programs or
training, White men who demonstrate an authentic desire to lead DEI work should be hired for or
assigned appropriate DEI roles that align with their skills and the organization’s needs.
Second, organizations can collaborate with human resources and DEI leaders to develop
and implement civility training and policies (Cortina et al., 2013). This recommendation requires
organizations to recognize that uncivil work behaviors such as antisocialism and isolationism
reflect biases against underrepresented or marginalized employees such as Black women.
Civility training and policies may broaden employees’ perceptions of gendered racism,
discrimination, and harassment and ensure that all employees are held to expectations of civility
that are explicitly present in organizational mission statements and HR policies. Given these
priorities, this recommendation may also require organizations’ leadership teams to rethink and
revise their mission and vision statements (Coleman, 2022).
Third, organizations can form strategic partnerships with external, mission-driven
organizations that prioritize increasing the representation of Black and women executives in
corporate America. One metric of successful DEI outcomes is community representation

153
provided by community partners who incorporate community voices into corporate DEI agendas
(Nanda et al., 2023). For example, the Executive Leadership Council, CHIEF, Silicon Valley’s
Culture Lab, and UPWARD Men are four organizations that can provide meaningful inputs
throughout the processes of identifying and recommending BWCEs for C-suite appointments
and providing critical allyship to Black women executives who are on track to become BWCEs.
In collaboration with Fortune 500 and other for-profit companies, these organizations can also
offer BWCEs support to thrive and sustain their C-suite positions. These strategic partnerships
would offer organizations and White allies of BWCEs the commitment to walk the walk of DEI
and do so in stride with each other to further the implementation and evaluation of strategies that
center BWCEs’ intersectionality and need for allyship. Comprehensively, these three strategies
can stimulate ongoing critical discourse in organizations and provoke organizations to
fundamentally value the intersectionality that Black women and other intersectional groups bring
to C-suite positions.
Recommendation 8: Create Organizational Accountability for Black Women’s C-Suite
Advancement and Sustainment
Organizations must be held accountable for Black women’s C-suite advancement and
sustainment if they are to reap the benefits of their work. Organizational accountability entails at
least four critical behaviors. First, organizational leaders must terminate corporate messaging
around the business case for diversity. Studies have shown that the business case for diversity
(i.e., linking diversity to economic gains) is problematic because it discounts the problem of
inequality, increases bias in society, and sends a derogatory and manipulative message to
historically underrepresented groups that they are only worth investing in via hire or promotion
because their intersectionality increases a company’s profitability (Ely & Thomas, 2020).

154
Second, organizations must measure the effectiveness of DEI efforts through data
analysis and qualitative surveys that center Black women’s voices (Roberts & Mayo, 2019). This
approach entails consistent alignment with a data-driven learning-and-effectiveness DEI
paradigm that holds all employees accountable for using evidence-based practices and
continuous learning to eradicate organizational barriers that prevent Black women’s C-suite
representation (Ely & Thomas, 2020). This paradigm would also challenge those responsible for
DEI efforts to set clear goals for BWCEs’ representation, engagement, and retention and
measure those outcomes through qualitative inquiry and data analysis (Roberts & Mayo, 2019).
Third, organizations should ensure that CDOs have a direct reporting line to the CEO to
track and publicize DEI efforts in performance reviews, promotion, and succession plans
(Roberts & Mayo, 2019). This shift in the reporting line is also essential since many CDOs tend
to be BWCEs. Also, many of these women do not sit in the C-suite and, therefore, do not reap
the benefits of legitimate C-suite leadership (Paikeday & Qosja, 2023).
Fourth, organizations must measure the impact of their mission and vision statements and
other corporate communications relevant to Black women’s advancement and sustainment in Csuite positions (J. M. Bell & Hartmann, 2007). An evaluation of these statements and messages
would reveal organizations’ DEI accountability, specifically after the murder of George Floyd.
During this timeframe, DEI messaging increased substantially in corporate America but declined
in action and impact and did not increase BWCEs’ representation (Guadiano, 2022).
Additionally, reports on recruitment, hiring, development, and promotion of Black women to Csuite positions post-George Floyd’s murder are necessary to monitor any corporate
accountability metrics related to the representation of BWCEs (Paikeday & Qosja, 2023).

155
Implementation of Recommendations
Many different organizational change models exist that each have different tools to aid in
an organization’s change strategy. In order to effect a successful change, organizational leaders
must be able to determine which model best fits a targeted problem of practice (Benjamin et al.,
2012). For this particular research, an actionable organizational change model for implementing
this study’s eight recommendations triggers changes at SCT’s individual, behavioral, and
environmental levels. The phenomenon of White allyship and BWCEs’ perspectives of it as a
potential career resource along their C-suite career journey and as an influence on their selfefficacy in career networking involves an organizational change approach that focuses on people.
Given the study findings and recommendations, I recommend the utilization of the awareness,
desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement (ADKAR) organizational change model (Hiatt,
2006). The ADKAR change model has multiple strengths that make it appropriate for
implementing this study’s recommendations. First, compared to other organizational change
models that focus on executing change itself rather than centering people’s needs, the model
centers on people change adaptation. This model starts and ends with people at the forefront of
change and has the greatest focus of all change models on employees at all levels throughout
organizations (Galli, 2018). Second, the ADKAR change model is goal-oriented and allows
leaders and their teams to prioritize activities that drive individual change (Bekmukhambetova,
2021). Third, the model challenges organizations to use key business leaders as change
advocates and employee coaches after identifying a change and throughout the change process
(Bekmukhambetova, 2021; Galli, 2018).
Despite its strengths, the ADKAR change model has the weakness of being limited when
seeking large-scale implementation (Bekmukhambetova, 2021; Galli, 2018). This weakness may

156
present challenges to increasing White allyship and BWCEs’ representation and sustainment in
certain Fortune 500 companies or other for-profit companies in corporate America. Nonetheless,
the study concludes that applying the model is appropriate, given the straightforward and easyto-use framework it offers everyone involved in managing organizational change. Figure 10
illustrates the five sequences of the model and the goals each sequence aims to accomplish.
Figure 10
The ADKAR Change Model
Note. From ADKAR Model of Change by Minute Tools Content Team, 2018. Minute Tools.
(https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/02/adkar-model-of-change/). Copyright 20024 by
Minute Tools.

157
Awareness
This first sequence of the ADKAR change model requires that organizations understand
why change is necessary (Hiatt, 2006). To generate awareness, the C-suite executive team must
be empowered to develop a compelling case for the nature of these changes and communicate to
employees why the change is necessary. The study data highlights significant challenges in
BWCEs’ ability to attain, thrive, and sustain their C-suite positions in the absence and presence
of White allyship. Organizations can develop communications plans that tailor their internal
messaging based on evidence-based data, particularly that obtained from BWCEs, Black women
pursuing C-suite positions, and their White allies. In their communications, change leaders must
clarify the business drivers and risks of the change so that employees can understand how they
can benefit from the change and how to align themselves with it. To be effective in building
awareness and preventing institutionalized resistance (Agocs, 1997), change leaders must utilize
different tactics. For example, leaders can create messaging around the moral and business cases
for BWCEs’ representation and allyship of BWCEs. In addition to effective communications,
leaders must leverage effective sponsorship, coaching by people managers, and providing
employees with readily accessible business information (Hiatt, 2006). These tactics must be
ongoing, and feedback must be consistently sought from all stakeholders.
Desire
For change leaders to influence a desire for change among employees, change leaders
must first understand the underlying factors that influence employees’ desire for change. This
understanding requires individual employees and their teams to make at least four types of
individual assessments. First, they must ask how the change will impact them and explicitly
inquire: “What’s in it for me?” Second, they must assess the risks of the change. For example,

158
employees must consider the organizational context for change management related to the
allyship of Black women executives, BWCEs, or other marginalized individuals in the company.
Third, employees must assess the change from a personal context in terms of how change can
influence their career aspirations, financial security, health, and family or home environment.
Fourth, employees must analyze how the change’s future state aligns with their values and
motivators (Hiatt, 2006). In light of this study’s findings, employees’ desire to support the
change may be based on their assessments of the opportunities and challenges of allyship of
BWCEs (if they exist in the organization) or aspiring BWCEs. Also, employees may consider
their experiences with or observations of Black women’s self-efficacy to advance their careers
with or without allyship from colleagues.
Change leaders can build momentum for employees’ desires by fully engaging in the
change management process (Hiatt, 2006). For example, leaders can be the primary sponsors of
change by gaining buy-in from leaders at all levels of the organization and building a leadership
coalition that further sponsors the change. Also, people leaders can be models of the change by
meeting regularly with direct reports and having transparent conversations about the change.
These conversations can enable leaders to develop risk mitigation plans and special tactics to
proactively build employees’ desire for change. Furthermore, leaders can engage employees in
having ownership of the change by inviting them to be change champions or ambassadors (Hiatt,
2006).
Knowledge
Knowledge is the third step in the ADKAR model. For this study, it refers to
understanding how to increase the representation of BWCEs through the allyship of current
BWCEs and aspiring BWCEs in the organization. This sequence is critical to ensuring change

159
leaders know how to implement Recommendations 6 through 8. Armed with awareness and
desire, these individuals can ensure that employees gain the information and education necessary
to implement the change. Three factors will impact employees’ achievement of knowledge: their
current level of knowledge, their capability to learn, and the resources available for education
and training(Hiatt, 2006).
The study’s findings indicated that BWCEs’ perceptions of authentic White allyship
include nonperformative allies who do not make formal pronouncements or declarations of their
allyship and do not require formal ally training. Although allies and would-be allies must learn
and unlearn White privilege as they provide allyship to BWCEs, change leaders can educate key
decision-makers on Recommendations 6 through 8: acknowledge systemic and endemic antiBlack and anti-woman behaviors, create and implement strategies for intersectional awareness
and allyship, and be accountable for Black women’s C-suite advancement and sustainment. In
alignment with these recommendations, change leaders can encourage decision-makers to
increase funding for BWCE commitments. This funding could enable change leaders to hire or
appoint allies who have demonstrated allyship or expressed interest in supporting the change.
This funding could also finance organizations’ recruitment efforts to promote or hire more
BWCEs, provide executive coaching to BWCEs, and fund executive development programs that
endorse Black women aspiring to become BWCEs. Additionally, change leaders can develop and
implement training or education for HR and DEI leaders on succession planning that redresses
Black women’s C-suite inequities. Training for these leaders may also encompass education on
relevant DEI resources, such as executive coaching for BWCEs and facilitating or sponsoring
employee resource groups that provide social and emotional support to Black women along their
C-suite trajectory.

160
Allies can also drive knowledge gains by developing an increased understanding of how
they can support the change. Allies in positions of power or influence must be educated about
how to leverage their social capital to enable Black women to progress to C-suite positions,
increase their social capital and power currency, and thrive to sustain their positions. As noted in
Recommendation 7, allies can acquire some of this knowledge through their involvement in their
organization’s strategic partnerships with external, mission-driven organizations that prioritize
increased representation and well-being of BWCEs.
Ability
Once knowledge has been created, the next step is to turn knowledge into action through
ability. Although creating ability is an individualized process, change leaders can impact
employees’ ability to effect increased allyship of Black women executives and increased
representation of BWCEs by employing various tactics to help employees succeed and thrive
through the change process. Ability may be one of the most challenging sequences of the
ADKAR model due to resistance forces such as employees’ psychological blocks, returns to old
habits, and limitations on time, resources, and physical and intellectual capabilities. The
organizational change to increase allyship and BWCEs’ representation may consequently require
change leaders to evaluate their organization’s potential to effectively implement change. This
evaluation may entail a review of the organization’s change management processes and budgets,
DEI reports, and HR’s executive recruitment, engagement, and retention practices. Also
necessary may be the solicitation of support from current and would-be-allies at the organization
and the establishment of appropriate internal and external partnerships. People managers can
provide one-on-one coaching, create safe spaces for practicing new behaviors, and create

161
feedback channels to identify gaps in employees’ abilities to effect the change (Hiatt, 2006).
Collectively, these actions may accelerate employees’ ability to bring the change to fruition.
Reinforcement
The goal of reinforcement is to ensure that the change endures once the change is
implemented. To consistently deliver White allyship of BWCEs and increased representation of
BWCEs, organizations must actively sustain these changes. Reinforcement includes intentional
actions such as recognition, incentives, and rewards, which may subsequently lead to employees’
personal satisfaction in their ability to effect the desired organizational change (Hiatt, 2006).
Organizations can recognize individuals engaged in ally relationships that support Black
women’s advancement to and sustainment in C-suite positions. In addition to BWCEs, their
allies, ERGs, and organizations’ external strategic partners can also receive recognition.
Recognition can be implemented through various mediums. For example, reinforcement
of the organizational change can be reflected in BWCE or ally testimonials, CEO
communications, company newsletters, employee forums or internal discussion boards, and town
hall meetings. Performance reviews and HR and DEI reports can also be leveraged to provide
recognition. Additionally, in alignment with Recommendation 8, organizations can create,
monitor, evaluate, and regularly report metrics regarding allyship and Black women’s
advancement to and sustainment in C-suite positions. Furthermore, organizations can continue to
invest in budgets and HR or DEI resources to bolster the change. Table 7 illustrates the
implementation of the ADKAR change model, which includes recommendations for each
sequence of the model.

162
Table 7
Implementation of the ADKAR Change Model: Sequences and Recommendations
Sequence Recommendations
Awareness Provide all employees an understanding of why change is needed
to increase BWCEs’ representation and sustainment in C-suite
positions and why allyship is a mutually valuable career
resource for BWCEs and their allies.
Empower the C-suite and other leadership teams to develop and
implement a communications plan with tailored messaging
grounded in evidence-based research and internal data from
HR and DEI.
Prevent or address employee resistance via a communications
plan, sponsorship, coaching by people managers, and giving
employees access to business information.
Hold town halls and internal forums for ongoing receipt of
employee feedback and resolution of obstacles to employees’
awareness.
Desire Empower employees to assess the underlying factors influencing
their desire for change by encouraging them to ask: “What’s in
it for me?”
Assess the risks of the change—e.g., the organization’s history of
change management, employees’ personal risks related to the
change, and employees’ personal values and motivators.
Build momentum for employees’ desire by ensuring change
leaders serve as primary sponsors, gain employee feedback,
and model the change through regular conversations about the
benefits of the change.
Develop a risk mitigation plan to address employees’ fears or
resistance to the change.
Empower employees to become change champions or
ambassadors.
Knowledge Educate decision-makers on how to acknowledge systemic and
endemic anti-Black and anti-woman behaviors; create and
implement strategies for intersectional awareness and allyship;
and be accountable for BWCEs’ advancement and sustainment.
Encourage decision-makers to increase funding for BWCE
commitments—e.g., C-suite recruitment, executive coaching,
executive development programs, and hiring allies for DEI
leadership roles.
Train HR and DEI leaders on succession planning for promoting
Black women to C-suite positions and facilitating relevant DEI
resources.

163
Sequence Recommendations
Create opportunities for allies and BWCEs to partner with
external organizations that support BWCEs’ increased
representation and sustainment.
Ability Evaluate the organization’s potential to effectively implement
change by reviewing change management processes and
budgets, DEI reports, and HR’s executive recruitment,
engagement, and retention practices.
Solicit support from current and would-be-allies at the
organization and establish appropriate external strategic
partnerships.
Empower people managers to provide one-on-one coaching,
create safe spaces for practicing new behaviors, and create
feedback channels to identify gaps in employees’ abilities to
effect the change.
Reinforcement Develop and implement actions that will actively sustain the
change over time—e.g., recognition, incentives, and rewards.
Create and utilize various mediums that center the voices of
BWCEs or aspiring BWCEs by publicizing the impact of all
relationships—e.g., BWCE and ally testimonials, CEO
communications, internal newsletters, employee forums,
internal discussion boards, town hall meetings, performance
reviews, HR and DEI reports.
Create, monitor, evaluate, and regularly report metrics regarding
allyship and Black women’s advancement and sustainment in
C-suite positions.
Continue to invest in budgets and HR and DEI resources to
bolster the change over time.
Recommendations for Future Research
This research focused on centering the voices of BWCEs in Fortune 500 companies and
other for-profit companies to amplify their lived experiences of underrepresentation and
perspective of White allyship along their C-suite journeys. As Black women’s C-suite
representation continues to remain disproportionately low compared to White men and BWCEs’
White female and Black male counterparts and, as research remains sparse on BWCEs’ lived
career experiences of underrepresentation and perspectives of White allyship in C-suite positions

164
in corporate America, further research must investigate BWCEs’ barriers and successes. The
following are recommendations for future research:
• As Black women represent less than 1% of CEO roles and 1.4% of all C-suite
postions in corporate America, systematic research on BWCEs’ lived experience to
understand their self-efficacy and leadership strategies that support their C-suite
progression is crucial (Carter & Sisco, 2022; Sims & Carter, 2019; A. N. Smith et al.,
2019; Thomas, 2019).
• As the concept of allyship in the workplace continues to evolve through acts of
sponsorship, advocacy, and mentorship, it is crucial to examine how organizations
ascribe value to allyship in DEI interventions and implement evidence-based allyship
policies to reduce bias toward BWCEs and other marginalized groups in corporate
America (Faucett et al., 2022; Suyemoto et al., 2021).
• Future research should interrogate how White allies, particularly White men who
dominate C-suite environments, successfully contribute to Black women’s ascension
to and sustaiment in C-suite positions (Carter & Sisco, 2022; Erskine & Bilimoria,
2019).
• Since a large proportion of research on allyship focuses on the perspectives and needs
of White allies, research should unpack how the inputs and outputs of ally training
and the work of White DEI professionals contribute to Black women’s abilities to
thrive and advance their leadership in corporate America (Kendall et al., 2021;
Warren & Schwam, 2023).
• Given the virtually unquantifiable number of BWCEs in corporate America and the
limited research on their lived experiences, ongoing research on BWCEs’ lived

165
experiences in corporate America and organizational strategies that actively disrupt
White privilege and White fragility is essential to increase BWCEs’ representation
and ability to leverage White allyship (Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019; Sisco et al., 2022).
Conclusion
This phenomenological study delivers implications for future research and practice by
learning from BWCEs’ perspectives and experiences of White allyship as they advanced to and
aimed to sustain their C-suite positions in corporate America. Exploring the perspectives of these
exemplary women provides insight into the concept of “outsider within” C-suite leadership.
Their narratives also illuminate the rationale for dismantling White privilege in corporate Csuites and amplifying the intersectionality, self-efficacy, and networking needs of BWCEs and
Black women pursuing C-suite positions. This study’s findings and recommendations offer
organizations, White allies, and the Black women they support a practical vision and pathway for
increasing BWCEs’ representation and, ultimately, creating more equitable and inclusive C-suite
leadership in corporate America.

166
References
Adams, R. B., & Funk, P. (2012). Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter? Management
Science, 58(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1452
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917–931.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017939404578
Alcorn, C. (2021, February 22). Black women executives making history in the c-suite offer
career advice to those following in their footsteps. CNN Business.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/20/business/black-women-c-suite-executives/index.html
Allen, T. N., & Lewis, A. (2016). Looking through a glass darkly: Reflections on power,
leadership and the Black female professional. The Journal of Values Based Leadership,
9(2), 109.
Ayvazian, A. (1995). Interrupting the cycle of oppression: The role of allies as agents of change.
P. Rothenberg & S. Munshi (Eds.), Race, class, and gender in the United States: An
integrated study (pp. 629–635). Worth Publishers.
Ayyala, R. S., & Coley, B. D. (2022). Promoting gender equity and inclusion through allyship.
Pediatric Radiology, 52, 1202–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-022-05345-3
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development, Vol
6: Six theories of child development (pp. 1–60). JAI Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. WH Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E.
A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 120–136).
Blackwell Publishing.

167
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
Bandura, A. (2023). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective on human nature. Wiley.
Beckwith, A. L., Carter, D. R., & Peters, T. (2016). The underrepresentation of African
American women in executive leadership: What’s getting in the way? Journal of
Business Studies Quarterly, 7(4), 116–134.
Bekmukhambetova, A. (2021). Comparative analysis of change management models based on an
exploratory literature review. Corvinus University of Budapest: 98–110
Bell, E. E., & Nkomo, S. M. (1999). Postcards from the borderlands: Building a career from the
outside/within. Journal of Career Development, 26(1), 69–84.
https://doi.org/10.1177/089484539902600106
Bell, E. L. (1992). Myths, stereotypes, and realities of Black women: A personal reflection. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(3), 363–376.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886392283003
Bell, E. L. J. E., & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our separate ways: Black and white women and the
struggle for professional identity. Harvard Business School Press.
Bell, J. M., & Hartmann, D. (2007). Diversity in everyday discourse: The cultural ambiguities
and consequences of “Happy Talk.” American Sociological Review, 72(6), 895–914.

168
Bell, M., Thach, L., & Fang, F. (2023). Examining motivations and challenges of black wine
entrepreneurs using the push–pull theory of entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Wine Business Research, 35(3), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-07-2022-0026
Bell Smith, E. L. J., & Nkomo, S. M. (2022). Accelerating the path to corporate leadership for all
women. Leader to Leader, 2022(104), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20635
Benjamin, B. M., Naimi, L. L., & Lopez, J. P. (2012). Organizational change models in human
resource development. Leadership & Organizational Management Journal, 2012(2).
Bloomenthal, A. (2023, March 28). What is the C suite? Meaning and positions defined.
Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/c-suite.asp
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bohonos, J. W., & Sisco, S. (2021). Advocating for social justice, equity, and inclusion in the
workplace: An agenda for anti-racist learning organizations. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 2021(170), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20428
Bonaparte, Y. (2016). Leaning in: A phenomenological study of African American women
leaders in the pharmaceutical industry. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 36, 11–
16. https://doi.org/10.21423/awlj-v36.a16
Boutte, G. S., & Jackson, T. O. (2014). Advice to White allies: Insights from faculty of color.
Race Ethnicity and Education, 17, 623–642. https://doi:10.1080/13613324.2012.759926
Bowleg, L. (2012). The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality- an
important theoretical framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health,
102(7), 1267–1273. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300750

169
Brown, K. T., & Ostrove, J. M. (2013). What does it mean to be an ally?: The perception of
allies from the perspective of people of color. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
43(11), 2211–2222. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12172
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Employed persons by detailed industry, sex, race, and
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm
Burns, M. D., & Granz, E. L. (2023). “Sincere White people, work in conjunction with us”:
Racial minorities’ perceptions of White ally sincerity and perceptions of all efforts.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(2), 453–475.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211059699
Career Employer. (2023). What is corporate America? 2023.
https://careeremployer.com/miscellaneous/what-is-corporate-america/
Carlson, J., Leek, C., Casey, E., Tolman, R., & Allen, C. (2020). What’s in a name? A synthesis
of “allyship” elements from academic and activist literature. Journal of Family
Violence, 35(8), 889–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00073-z
Carlton, P. G., Smith, A., Watkins, M. B., & Carven, M. (2016). The Black Women Executives
Research Initiative revisited. Springboard and The Executive Leadership Council.
http://www.springboardleadership.com/black-women-executives-research-revisited
Carter, A. D., & Sisco, S. (2022). The hill we climb: The future of women of color leadership
development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 24(3), 208–219.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223221099665
Casad, B. J., & Bryant, W. J. (2016). Addressing stereotype threat is critical to diversity and
inclusion in organizational psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(8), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00008

170
Case, K. A. (2012). Discovering the privilege of whiteness: White women’s reflections on antiracist identity and ally behavior. The Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 78–96.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01737.x
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol
refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337
Catalyst. (2023, February 3). Women CEOs of the S&P 500 [Blog post].
https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-ceos-of-the-sp-500/
Cheng, S., Ng, L., Traylor, A., & King, E. (2019). Helping or hurting? Understanding women’s
perceptions of male allies. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 5(2). Article 6.
https://doi.org/10.25035/pad.2019.02.006
Chou, T., Asnaani, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Perception of racial discrimination and
psychopathology across three US ethnic minority groups. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 18(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025432
Coates, T.-N. (2015). Between the world and me. Text Publishing Company.
Coleman, J. (2022, March 28). It’s time to take a fresh look at your company’s values. Harvard
Business Review, https://hbr.org/2022/03/its-time-to-take-a-fresh-look-at-your-companysvalues?autocomplete=true
Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black
feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), S14–S32.
https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1986.33.6.03a00020
Collins, P. H. (1999). Reflections on the outsider within. Journal of Career Development, 26(1),
85–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/089484539902600107

171
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203900055
Colvin, C. (2021, June 30). Women, BIPOC face roadblocks to C-suite, Gartner reports.
Healthcare Dive. https://www.hrdive.com/news/women-bipoc-promotion-csuite/602584/
Combs, G. M., Milosevic, I., & Bilimoria, D. (2019). Introduction to the special topic forum:
Critical discourse: Envisioning the place and future of diversity and inclusion in
organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(3), 277–286.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819857739
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic
minorities promoted to CEO? Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1080–1089.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2161
Coqual.org. (2015). Black women ready to lead. https://coqual.org/reports/black-women/
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective
incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of
Management, 39(6), 1579–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

172
Cyr, D., Weiner, J., & Burton, L. (2021). “I want to speak to a White person”: Daily
microaggressions and resilient leadership. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership,
24(4), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458921997527
Darouei, M., & Pluut, H. (2018). The paradox of being on the glass cliff: Why do women accept
risky leadership positions? Career Development International, 23(4), 397–426.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2018-0024
Davidson, M., & Davidson, M. J. (1997). The Black and ethnic minority woman manager:
Cracking the concrete ceiling. Sage.
Davis, A. (1981). Women, race, and class. Random House.
Davis, D. R. (2016). The journey to the top: Stories on the intersection of race and gender for
Black women in academia and business. Journal of Research Initiatives, 2(1).
Davis, S., & McClain, W. L. (2023). Interpretations of Black, Indigenous, and Women of Color
(BIWOC) leaders: Examining identity, response styles, and coping mechanisms. Journal
of Business Diversity, 23(1), 31–39.
De Sousa, I., & Varcoe, C. (2021). Centering Black feminist thought in nursing praxis. Nursing
Inquiry, 29(1), Article e12473.
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(11-12),
760–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0844-x
DuBois, W. E. B. (2013). From Darkwater: Voices from within the veil. Harvard University
Press.
Ellis, D. E. (2021). Bound together: Allyship in the art of medicine. Annals of Surgery, 274(2),
e187–e188. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004888

173
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2020). Getting serious about diversity: Enough already with the
business case. Harvard Business Review, 98(6), 114–122.
Erskine, S. E., Archibold, E. E., & Bilimoria, D. (2021). Afro-Diasporic women navigating the
black ceiling: Individual, relational, and organizational strategies. Business Horizons, 64,
37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.10.004
Erskine, S. E., & Bilimoria, D. (2019). White allyship of Afro-Diasporic women in the
workplace: A transformative strategy for organizational change. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 26(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819848993
Fairchild, C. (2021, February 10). The untapped power of Black women in corporate America
[Blog post]. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shining-light-corporate-americasbiggest-blind-spot-black-fairchild-1e/
Faucett, E. A., Brenner, M. J., Thompson, D. M., & Flanary, V. A. (2022). Tackling the minority
tax: A roadmap to redistributing engagement in diversity, equity, and inclusion
initiatives. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 166(6), 1174–1181.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01945998221091696
Fletcher, L., & Marvell, R. (2023). Furthering transgender inclusion in the workplace:
Advancing a new model of allyship intentions and perceptions. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 34(9), 1726–1756.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.2023895
Galli, J. B. (2018). Change management models: A comparative analysis and concerns. IEEE
Engineering Management Review, 46(3), 124–132.
https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2018.2866860

174
Galloway, L. (2022, March 9). There are more women executives, but C-suite representation
remains scarce- Here’s why. Chief. https://chief.com/articles/why-women-barred-fromcsuite
Gamst, G., Arellano-Morales, L., Meyers, L. S., Serpas, D. G., Balla, J., Diaz, A., Dobson, K.,
Feller, C., Rought, S., Salazar, B., Garcia, S., & Aldape, R. (2020). Shifting can be
stressful for African American women: A structural mediation model. The Journal of
Black Psychology, 46(5), 364–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798420939721
Golden, M. (2002). Women at work: Successful Black-women executives tell how they confront
‘White-girl privilege’ on the job and win! Essence, 33(6), 190.
Graham, J., Hodsdon, G., Busse, A., & Crosby, M. P. (2023). BIPOC voices in ocean sciences:
A qualitative exploration of factors impacting career retention. Journal of Geoscience
Education, 71(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2022.2052553
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–
1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological
Theory, 1, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/202051
Griffeth, L. L., Malik, R. F., Charas, S., & Randall, N. (2021). Sponsorship: An Intervention to
Accelerate Women’s Career Velocity. The ICFAI Journal of Soft Skills, 15(3), 7–22.
Guadiano, P. (2022, June 27). Two years after George Floyds’ murder, is your DEI strategy
performative or sustainable? Fortune.
Guynn, J. (2023, September 1). No Black women CEOs left in S&P 500 after Walgreens CEO
Rosalind Brewer resigns. USA Today.

175
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/09/01/walgreens-ceo-exit-no-blackwomen-ceos/70743102007/
Hall, J. C., Everett, J. E., & Hamilton-Mason, J. (2012). Black women talk about workplace
stress and how they cope. Journal of Black Studies, 43(2), 207–226.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934711413272
Hanasono, L. K., Ro, H. K., O’Neil, D. A., Broido, E. M., Yacobucci, M. M., Peña, S., & Root,
K. V. (2022). Communicating privilege and faculty allyship. Communication Quarterly,
70(5), 560–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2022.2099294
Hekman, D. R., Johnson, S. K., Foo, M., & Yang, W. (2017). Does diversity-valuing behavior
result in diminished performance ratings for non-White and female leaders? Academy of
Management Journal, 60(2), 771–797. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0538
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: a model for change in business, government, and out community.
Prosci.
Hill, A. D., Upadhyay, A. D., & Beekun, R. I. (2015). Do female and ethnically diverse
executives endure inequity in the CEO position or do they benefit from their minority
status? An empirical examination. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1115–1134.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2274
Holder, A. M. B., Jackson, M. A., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2015). Racial microaggression
experiences and coping strategies of Black women in corporate leadership. Qualitative
Psychology, 2(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000024
hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a woman? South End Press.
Hoover, W. (2021, August 9). I’m a Black female DEI executive, and this is why I believe it’s
time to debunk the myth of ‘Black girl magic.’ Fast Company.

176
https://www.fastcompany.com/90663479/im-a-black-female-dei-executive-and-this-iswhy-i-believe-its-time-to-debunk-the-myth-of-black-girl-magic
Hyman, J. E., White, D. A., & David, J. L. (2022). The sisters of sport psychology: An
examination of the professional black female experience. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 34(3), 624–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2021.1872733
Jackson, T. M. (2021). We have to leverage those relationships: How Black women business
owners respond to limited social capital. Sociological Spectrum, 41(2), 137–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2020.1847706
Johnson, I. R., & Pietri, E. S. (2022). An ally you say? Endorsing White women as allies to
encourage perceptions of allyship and organizational identity-safety among Black
women. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(2), 453–473.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220975482
Jun, S., Phillips, L. T., & Foster-Gimbel, O. A. (2023). The missing middle: Asian employees’
experience of workplace discrimination and pro-Black allyship. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 108(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001068
Karnaze, M. M., Rajagopalan, R. M., Eyler, L. T., & Bloss, C. S. (2023). Compassion as a tool
for allyship and anti-racism. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1143384.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1143384
Kendall, D. L., Cannon, S., & Gill, J. K. (2021). The role of White support in predicting racial
minorities’ feelings of inclusion and retention. Journal of Organizational Psychology,
21(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.33423/jop.v21i2.4202

177
Kim, S., & Kuo, M. H. (2015). Examining the relationships among coaching, trustworthiness,
and role behaviors: A social exchange perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 51(2), 152–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886315574884
Kimmel, M. S., & Ferber, A. L. (2018). Privilege: A Reader (4th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494802
King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a Black feminist
ideology. Signs, 14, 42–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/494491
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
(4th ed.). Sage.
Kutlaca, M., & Radke, H. R. M. (2023). Towards an understanding of performative allyship:
Definition, antecedents and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
17(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12724
Lamar-Becker, S. L. (2022, September 19). The truth about #BlackGirlMagic: The origin story
you didn’t know. Sesimag. https://sesimag.com/2022/09/19/black-girl-magic-the-originstory/
LeanIn.Org & McKinsey & Company. (2020). The state of Black women in corporate America,
2020. https://leanin.org/research/state-of-black-women-in-corporate-america
LeanIn.Org & McKinsey & Company. (2021). Women in the workplace, 2021.
https://womenintheworkplace.com/
LeanIn.Org & McKinsey & Company. (2022). Women in the workplace, 2022.
https://womenintheworkplace.com/
Levine-Rasky, C., & Ghaffar-Siddiqui, S. (2020). White allyship means a transfer of power.
Contexts, 19(4), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504220977944

178
Lewis, J. A., Mendenhall, R., Harwood, S. A., & Huntt, M. B. (2013). Coping with gendered
racial microaggressions among Black women college students. Journal of African
American Studies, 17, 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-012-9219-0
Liu, H. (2021). Diversity beyond whiteness: The possibilities for anti-racist diversity research, in
S. N. Just, A. Risberg, & F. F. Villeseche (Eds), The Routledge companion to
organizational diversity research methods (pp. 24–35). Routledge.
Lomotey, K. (2017). The disquisition at Western Carolina University: The culminating
experience in the university’s EdD program. Disquisition Center, Western Carolina
University.
Love, B. (2019, March). We want to do more than survive. Schomberg Center for Research in
Black Culture. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4880307/user-clip-dr-bettina-loveexplains-means-conspirator
Ma, S., Seidl, D., & McNulty, T. (2021). Challenges and practices of interviewing business
elites. Strategic Organization, 19(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127020980969
Madsen, S. R., Townsend, A., & Scribner, R. T. (2020). Strategies that male allies use to
advance women in the workplace. Journal of Men’s Studies, 28(3), 239–259.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826519883239
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2015). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.
Marshall, M., & Wingfield, T. (2016, July 1). Getting more Black women into the C-suite.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/07/getting-more-black-women-into-the-csuite

179
Martins, T. V., de Lima, T. J. S., & Santos, W. S. (2020). Effects of gendered racial
microaggressions on the mental health of Black women. Ciencia & Saude Coletiva,
25(7), 2793–2802. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232020257.29182018
Mavin, S., Elliott, C., Stead, V., & Grandy, G. (2021). Women-in-leadership research and
feminist futures: New agendas for feminist research and impact on gender equality,
Gender in management, 38(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-04-2023-380
Mavin, S., & Grandy, G. (2018). Women leaders self-body-care and corporate moderate
feminism: An (im) perfect place for feminism. Gender, Work and Organization, 26(11),
1546–1561. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12292
McCluney, C. L., & Rabelo, V. C. (2019). Conditions of visibility: An intersectional
examination of Black women’s belongingness and distinctiveness at work. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 113, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.09.008
McGirt, E. (2017, September 27). The black ceiling: Why African-American women aren’t
making it to the top in corporate America. Fortune. http://fortune.com/2017/09/27/blackfemale-ceos-fortune-500-companies/
McIntosh, P. (1997). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see
correspondences through work in women’s studies. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.),
Critical White studies: Looking behind the mirrors (pp. 291–299). Temple University
Press.
McKenzie, N. (2014). Black girl dangerous: On race, queerness, class and gender. BGD Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

180
Mickey, E. L. (2022). The organization of networking and gender inequality in the new
economy: Evidence from the tech industry. Work and Occupations, 49(4), 383–420.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884221102134
Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women
reach the top of America’s largest corporations? Pearson Education.
Motro, D., Evans, J. B., Ellis, A. P. J., & Benson, L. (2022). Race and reactions to women’s
expressions of anger at work: Examining the effects of the ‘angry Black woman’
stereotype. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(1), 142–152.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000884
Nanda, J. P., Clark, R. S., Harrison, J. A., Ouyang, P., Lacanienta, C., Himmelfarb, C.,
Henderson, C., Hunt, S., Johnson, J., Laird, A., MacRae, L. A., Qualls, T., Robb, I.,
Reese, M., Thompson, M., Bates-Hopkins, B., Bone, L., Byringiro, S., Carooll, P., …
Young, D. (2023). Community-academic partnerships to embrace and ensure diversity,
equity, and inclusion in translational science: Evidence of successful community
engagement. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 7(1), e188–e188.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.601
Nash, M., Grant, R., Moore, R., & Winzenberg, T. (2021). Male allyship in institutional STEMM
gender equity initiatives. PLoS One, 16(3), Article e0248373.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248373
Nixon, M. L. (2017). Experiences of women of color university chief diversity officers. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000043

181
Nkomo, S. M. (2021). Reflection on the continuing denial of the centrality of “race” in
management and organization studies. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 40(2), 212–224.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2021-0011
Nkomo, S. M., & Al Ariss, A. (2014). The historical origins of ethnic (White) privilege in US
organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(4), 389–404.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0178
Nugent, A. (2021). Discovering allyship at a historically Black university. Nature, 597(7877),
577–578. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02527-1
Oppong, S. (2023). Epistemological allyship. Psychology and Developing Societies, 35(1), 69–
86. https://doi.org/10.1177/09713336231152301
Paikeday, T. S., & Qosja, N. (2023, February 25). How to fix the C-suite diversity problem.
Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/02/25/how-to-fix-the-c-suite-diversity-problem/
Parker, P. S., & ogilvie, d. t. (1996). Gender, culture and leadership: Toward a culturally distinct
model of African-American women executives’ leadership strategies. The Leadership
Quarterly, 7(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90040-5
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Post, C., Lokshin, B., & Boone, C. (2021, April 6). Research: Adding women to the C-suite
changes how companies think. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2021/04/research-adding-women-to-the-c-suite-changes-how-companiesthink
Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., Siem, B., Wright, S. C., & Becker, J. C. (2020). Beyond allyship:
Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups.

182
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320918698
Reedus, L. B. (2020). When White disengagement masquerades as White allyship, we all lose.
Women and Language, 43(1), 158–160. https://doi.org/10.34036/WL.2020.017
Ro, H. K., Campbell-Jacobs, B., Broido, E. M., Hanasono, L. K., O’Neil, D. A., Yacobucci, M.
M., & Root, K. V. (2023). Faculty allyship: Differences by gender, race, and rank at a
single U.S. University. Gender, Work and Organization, 29, Article 12988.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12988
Roberts, L. M., & Mayo, A. J. (2019, November 14). Toward a racially just workplace. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/11/toward-a-racially-just-workplace
Roberts, L. M., Mayo, A. J., Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2018, March 1). Beating the odds:
Leadership lesson from senior African-American women. Harvard Business Review,
96(2), 126–131.
Rollock, N. (2020, June 3). It’s time for White people to step up for Black colleagues. Financial
Times. https://www.ft.com/content/beadaf00-a4f8-11ea-a27c-b8aa85e36b7e
Rosette, A. S., Koval, C. Z., Ma, A., & Livingston, R. (2016). Race matters for women leaders:
Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. The Leadership Quarterly,
27(3), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.008
Rosette, A. S., & Livingston, R. W. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of
organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-subordinate identities.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1162–1167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.002

183
Sabat, I. E., Martinez, L. R., & Wessel, J. L. (2013). Neo-activism: Engaging allies in modern
workplace discrimination reduction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(4), 480–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12089
Sales, S., Burke, M. G., & Cannonier, C. (2020). African American women leadership across
contexts: Examining the internal traits and external factors on women leaders’
perceptions of empowerment. Journal of Management History, 26(3), 353–376.
Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of color in leadership:
Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychological Association, 65(3),
171–181.
Scaramuzzo, P., Bartone, M. D., & Young, J. L. (2021). A conceptualization framework of
allyship: Bidirectional allyship between Black heterosexual women and White gay males.
Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, 21(5), 381–393.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15327086211035354
Semczuk, N., & Barba, M. (2023, September 5). What are Fortune 500 companies? Bankrate.
https://www.bankrate.com/investing/what-are-fortune-500-companies/
Sesko, A. K., & Biernat, M. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black
women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 356–360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.016
Settles, I. H., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2019). Scrutinized but not recognized:
(In)visibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 113, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.003
Sims, C., & Carter, A. D. (2019). Revisiting Parker and Ogilvie’s model of African American
executive leadership. Journal of Business Diversity, 19(2), 99–112.

184
Singleton, C. (2022). Representation matter. Knowledge Quest, 50(4), 62–.
Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Ladge, J. J., & Carlton, P. (2018, May 10). Interviews with 59
Black female executives explore intersectional invisibility and strategies to overcome it.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/05/interviews-with-59-black-femaleexecutives-explore-intersectional-invisibility-and-strategies-to-overcome-it
Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Ladge, J. J., & Carlton, P. (2019). Making the invisible visible:
Paradoxical effects of intersectional invisibility on the career experiences of executive
Black women. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1705–1734.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1513
Smith, S. B. (2021, March 5). How a lack of sponsorship keeps Black women out of the C-suite.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/03/how-a-lack-of-sponsorship-keepsblack-women-out-of-the-c-suite
Solange, C., Griffeth, L. L., & Rubina, M. (2015, November 16). Why men have more help
getting to the C-suite. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/11/why-men-havemore-help-getting-to-the-c-suite
Spanierman, L. B., & Smith, L. (2017). Roles and responsibilities of White allies: Implications
for research, teaching, and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 45(5), 606–617.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000017717712
Spreitzer, G. M., Porath, C. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2012). Toward human sustainability.
Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 155–162.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds). The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). p. 443-466. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

185
Sue, C., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. The American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.62.4.271
Sue, D. W., Alsaidi, S., Awad, M. N., Glaeser, E., Calle, C. Z., & Mendez, N. (2019). Disarming
racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, white allies, and
bystanders. The American Psychologist, 74(1), 128–142.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000296
Suyemoto, K. L., Hochman, A. L., Donovan, R. A., & Roemer, L. (2021). Becoming and
fostering allies and accomplices through authentic relationships: Choosing justice over
comfort. Research in Human Development, 18(1-2), 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2020.1825905
Swan, E. (2017). What are white people to do? Listening, challenging ignorance, generous
encounters and the ‘not yet’ as diversity research praxis. Gender, Work and
Organization, 24(5), 547–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12165
Thomas, K. M. (2019). Leading as “the other.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
26(3), 402–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819849005
Thomas Tobin, C. S., Erving, C. L., Hargrove, T. W., & Satcher, L. A. (2020). Is the BlackWhite mental health paradox consistent across age, gender, and psychiatric disorders?
Aging & Mental Health, 0(0), 1–9.
Tibbetts, E., & Parks Smith, K. (2023). Beyond “a good fit”: Examining effective mentorship for
BIPOC practitioners in a predominantly white profession. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 35(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2022.2055221

186
Tutić, A., & Wiese, H. (2015). Reconstructing Granovetter’s network theory. Social Networks,
43, 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.05.002
Twine, F. W. (2018). Technology’s invisible women: Black geek girls in Silicon Valley and the
failure of diversity initiatives. International Journal of Critical Diversity Studies, 1(1),
58–79. https://doi.org/10.13169/intecritdivestud.1.1.0058
University of Southern California. (2022). Zoom video and audio conferencing.
https://itservices.usc.edu/zoom/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). U.S. Census Bureau quick facts: United States.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/AGE775222
Utt, J. (2013). So you call yourself an ally: 10 things all ‘allies’ need to know. Everyday
Feminism. https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/11/things-allies-need-to-know/
Vial, A. C., Napier, J. L., & Brescoll, V. L. (2016). A bed of thorns: Female leaders and the selfreinforcing cycle of illegitimacy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 400–414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.004
Visible Learning Labs. (n.d.). Network science: A reference guide.
https://visiblenetworklabs.com/2022/09/30/network-science-a-reference-guide/
Wahba, P. (2021, February 1). Only 19: The lack of Black CEOs in the history of the Fortune
500. Fortune. https://fortune.com/longform/fortune-500-black-ceos-business-history/
Warren, M. A., & Schwam, A. (2023). So you think you are an ally? Effects of (in)congruence
between men’s self-perceptions and women’s perceptions of men’s values and allyship
on women’s inclusion and vitality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 96(1), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12415

187
Warren, M. A., & Warren, M. T. (2023). The EThIC model of virtue-based allyship
development: A new approach to equity and inclusion in organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 182(3), 783–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-05002-z
Watson-Thompson, J. W., Hassaballa, R. H., Valentini, S. H., Schulz, J. A., Kadavasal, P. V.,
Harsin, J. D., Thompson, V. M., Hassaballa, I. H., Esiaka, C. C., & Thompson, E. C.
(2022). Actively addressing systemic racism using a behavioral community approach.
Behavior and Social Issues, 31, 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-022-00101-6
Williams, M., & Sharif, N. (2021). Racial allyship: Novel measurement and new insights. New
Ideas in Psychology, 62, Article 100865.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2021.100865
Williams, M. T., Skinta, M. D., & Martin-Willett, R. (2021). After Pierce and Sue: A revised
racial microaggressions taxonomy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(5), 991–
1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621994247
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.
Woods-Giscombé, C. L. (2010). Superwoman schema: African American women’s views on
stress, strength, and health. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 668–683.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310361892
Yin, R. K. (2009). Writing up qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Yuan, K. (2020, June 19). Black employees say ‘performative allyship’ is an unchecked problem
in the office. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2020/06/19/performative-allyship-workingwhile-black-white-allies-corporate-diversity-racism/
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2012, March 15). Are women better leaders than men? Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2012/03/a-study-in-leadership-women-do

188
Zumaeta, J. (2019). Lonely at the top: How do senior leaders navigate the need to belong?
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(1), 111–135.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818774548

189
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
This study’s research design is a qualitative, inductive approach via phenomenological
inquiry. The questions in the following sections will be asked of interviewees. These questions
help address the study’s research questions.
Research Questions
1. How do BWCEs assess White allyship as a resource through their advancement to
and sustainment in C-suite positions?
2. How does White allyship influence BWCEs’ self-efficacy in navigating career
networks to advance to or sustain C-suite positions?
Introduction to the Interview
Hello! How are you doing? Is this still a good time for us to talk today? My name is
Jalaima Nichols, and I’m a doctor of education (EdD) candidate at the University of Southern
California, focusing on organizational change and leadership. My dissertation study is on Black
women C-suite executives and their perceptions of the role of White allyship in their ascension
to and sustainment in C-suite positions. Allyship is defined as an active, consistent, and ongoing
practice of unlearning and re-evaluation, in which a person in a position of privilege and power
seeks to operate in solidarity with a targeted group. In the context of corporate America and
predominantly White C-suites, Black women C-suite leaders may have unique experiences with
allyship, specifically White allyship, that shape their career development and advancement.
I am very passionate about this topic because I am a Black female senior leader in
corporate America and aspire to advance in my leadership. This research aims to center Black
women C-suite executives’ voices and elevate their lived experiences to inform society about

190
why Black women’s representation is integral within C-suite positions in corporate America. I
look forward to learning about your experiences.
Before we begin, I would like to spend a few minutes covering a few logistics regarding
our time together. But first, is there anything you would like to ask me before we start our
discussion?
Thank you once again for your time and willingness to participate in the interview aspect
of my study. I appreciate your openness to being interviewed and sharing your knowledge and
experience. Our interview today will last approximately 1 hour. I want to acknowledge that some
questions may bring up difficult or unpleasant experiences. You are free to skip questions or
share as little or as much as you feel comfortable.
Confidentiality
I would also like to remind you that your participation in the study is completely
voluntary. If you decide not to participate, there are no negative consequences. Also, once we get
started, and if you decide not to answer a question(s), you can stop participating at any time
without any negative consequences.
You have received the Information Sheet, which informs you that your participation in
this study includes a 1:1 interview of 45 to 60 minutes duration conducted via Zoom. I must
audio record our conversation so that I may accurately document the information you convey. I
will also be taking notes as you speak. Please know that I am listening and want to ensure that I
accurately capture your words. Do you have any questions before we begin the Zoom interview?
___Yes ___No
[If yes, address the participant’s questions].
[If no, tell the participant you will now press record].

191
Our conversation is private and confidential and will only be used for the purpose of this
study. Any information that can be identified with you will be modified and kept confidential. I
will not use your name or position in any documents I write or publish without your permission.
Do I have your permission to record our conversation today? ___Yes ___No
[If yes] Thank you! Please let me know if, at any time, you need to stop, want me to turn
off the recorder, or need to take a break. If you wish to discontinue the audio recording or the
interview itself at any time during the interview, please let me know. You may withdraw your
participation at any time without consequence.
[If no] Thank you for letting me know. I will only take notes of our conversation.
Before we begin the interview, do you have any questions or concerns? [Discuss
questions or concerns]. If you have questions at any point in the study, I am happy to answer
them. Now, with your permission, we will begin the interview. [Press record if the participant
has granted permission to record the interview].

Table A1
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Key concepts addressed
First, I’d love to hear a little bit about your background and your career journey.
Can you please share a little about
yourself and your past or current roles
as a corporate executive?
What did you enjoy about the
role? What did you not enjoy
about the role?
RQ1 Intersectionality, selfefficacy, networking
What does being a Black woman and a
C-suite executive in corporate
America mean to you?
Can you tell me what you mean by
… ? Tell me more about that.
RQ1 Intersectionality
What does networking in corporate
America mean to you?
What are the most significant challenges
you personally face now in the C-suite
(or have faced throughout your
ascension to a C-suite position)?
How has networking given you a
sense of community in your
career?
What are some of the most
significant benefits of being Black
and a woman in the C-suite?
Tell me more about that.
RQ2
RQ2
Intersectionality, selfefficacy, networking
Intersectionality, selfefficacy, networking
Now, I’d like to ask you some questions about allyship within your workplace.
How do you describe allyship in the
context of your career development?
Can you tell me what you mean by
… ? Give me an example of
that.
RQ1 Intersectionality, selfefficacy, networking
How do you define White allyship? Can you tell me what you mean by
… ?
RQ1 Intersectionality, selfefficacy, networking
To what extent do you feel White
colleagues in your workplace(s)
behave/have behaved as allies
throughout your career (if at all)?
What makes you feel that way?
What are the signs or evidence that
these White colleagues are your
allies? How do you know that
they did what they said they
would do for you?
RQ1 Intersectionality,
perceptions of White
allyship
19
2

Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Key concepts addressed
If someone were to say that allyship
from White colleagues contributes to
Black women’s ascension to or
sustainment in C-suite positions in
corporate America, what would you
say to them?
How does this allyship compare to
other career resources (e.g.,
mentorship and sponsorship, if
at all?)
Can you tell me what you mean by
… ? Tell me more about that.
RQ2 Intersectionality, selfefficacy, networking
In your opinion, what prevents Black
women executives from proactively
seeking out White colleagues as allies
in the workplace?
Can you tell me what you mean by
… ? Tell me more about that.
RQ2 Intersectionality, selfefficacy, networking
In your experience, how often do
you/did you hesitate to seek out White
colleagues as allies in your career?
What caused you to hesitate?
How did you manage your
hesitations?
RQ2 Perceptions of White
allyship
I’d like to ask you some questions about specific experiences you have had or are currently having with White allyship in your
career.
Think about a time when you personally
benefitted from White allyship in your
career journey (if at all). Please walk
me through the experience.
How did this experience make you
feel? What did you do/say next?
What did you learn about
yourself from the experience?
RQ2 Self-efficacy
Think about a time when you were
personally challenged by White
allyship in your career journey (if at
all). Please walk me through the
experience.
How did this experience make you
feel? What did you do/say next?
What did you learn about
yourself from the experience?
RQ2 Intersectionality, selfefficacy, networking
How have your personal experiences
with White allyship impacted how
you have navigated your career
development (if at all)?
How did these experiences affect
your confidence? Your
motivation? Your ability to selfregulate in the face of
challenge? Tell me more about
that. Give me an example of
that.
RQ2 Perceptions of White
allyship, self-efficacy,
networking
19
3

Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Key concepts addressed
As we conclude our interview, I’d like
to ask a final question about White
allyship in corporate America.
As a Black woman and C-suite
executive, what advice would you
give to other Black women in their
experiences with White allyship in
corporate America?
I heard you say … . Did I
understand you correctly?
RQ2 Intersectionality,
perceptions of White
allyship, self-efficacy,
networking
19
4

195
Conclusion to the Interview
Before we conclude this interview, is there anything you would like to share that I might
not have covered about the role of White allyship in the leadership development and career
advancement of Black women C-suite executives in corporate America?
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and time with me today! Everything you
have shared is helpful for my study. Again, I want to remind you that a pseudonym will be
assigned to your name, and I will utilize the Zoom recording for transcript purposes. If I have
any follow-up questions regarding accuracy, can I reach out? I appreciate your support of my
doctoral studies and of the research community’s need to draw awareness to the allyship of
Black women in corporate America and the importance of increasing Black women’s
representation in C-suite positions.

196
Appendix B: University of Southern California Information Sheet
My name is Jalaima Nichols, and I am a student at the University of Southern California.
I am conducting a research study on the role of White allyship in the career development
and advancement of Black women C-suite executives (BWCEs). The purpose of the study is to
center the voices and lived experiences of BWCEs in Fortune 500 and Fortune 500-type (i.e.,
for-profit) companies, to explore BWCEs’ perspectives on the role of White allyship in their
ascension to and sustainment in C-suite positions in corporate America. The name of this study is
“Leading as Outsiders Within the C-suite: A Phenomenological Study of Black Women C-suite
Executives’ Perspectives on White Allyship in Corporate America.” I am seeking your
participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns
at any point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if you meet the following criteria:
1. You are a woman who identifies as Black (or African American).
2. You have current or former employment in a C-suite position in a Fortune 500 or
Fortune 500-type corporate (i.e., for-profit) environment.
3. You have current or former C-suite employment within a predominantly White Csuite.
4. You are over 18 years old.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
1. Participate in a 1:1 online interview over Zoom for 45–60 minutes.
2. (If necessary) Participate in a follow-up 1:1 online interview over Zoom for 45–60
minutes.

197
I will publish the results in my dissertation. Participants will not be identified in the
results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal information.
All data will be de-identified prior to any publication or presentations. I may share your data, deidentified, with other researchers in the future.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me: jalaiman@usc.edu or (240)
353-7569. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact
the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
hrpp@usc.edu.

198
Appendix C: Recruitment Email
The following is the email to potential participants to find out if they qualify for the
study.
Subject: Invitation to Participate in a Groundbreaking Research Study on Black Women
C-Suite Executives and their Perceptions of White Allyship in Corporate America
Dear [participant’s name],
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Jalaima Nichols, and I am a doctoral
candidate at the University of Southern California. I am reaching out to you today with a unique
opportunity to be a part of a significant research study aimed at understanding the career
networking experiences of Black women C-suite executives in corporate America and their
perceptions of White allyship along their career journeys.
The underrepresentation of Black women in C-suite positions in corporate America is an
equity problem that remains essentially unchanged despite decades of U.S. civil rights
legislation, the feminist movement, affirmative action, and the proliferation of diversity, equity,
and inclusion goals in U.S. corporations. We believe that understanding the role of White
allyship, or lack thereof, in Black women’s ascension to and sustainment in C-suite positions is
crucial for understanding how to create equitable representation of Black women in corporate
America’s C-suites, particularly in Fortune 500 and other for-profit companies.
I believe that your insights and experiences could make a substantial contribution to my
study. Your perspective will help shed light on the issues many Black women C-suite executives
encounter daily in White-dominated corporate spaces and pave the way for meaningful and
lasting change within Fortune 500 C-suites.

199
Study details:
• The research study aims to explore the various perceptions of White allyship and
experiences of Black women C-suite executives within White-dominated corporate
workplaces.
• To be approved for the study, participants must meet the following inclusion criteria:
• Women who identify as Black (or African American);
• Current or former executives employed in a C-suite position in a Fortune 500
or Fortune-500-type corporate (i.e., for-profit) environment; and
• Current or former executives employed within a predominantly White C-suite.
• Your responses will be handled with the utmost confidentiality, and your personal
information will be kept strictly anonymous to ensure your privacy.
• The findings from this study will be used for academic purposes only, and any
publication or presentation will be devoid of any identifying information.
Benefits of participation: By taking part in this study, you will not only contribute to
advancing our understanding of how Black women C-suite executives perceive and address
White allyship along their career trajectories, but you will also play an essential role in raising
awareness of the challenges Black women face in their ascension to and sustainment in corporate
leadership—up to, and including, C-suite positions. Furthermore, this study will help Fortune
500 companies and other corporate employers develop and implement more effective strategies
to foster equity and support for Black women’s advancement to and sustainment in C-suite
positions.

200
Should you have any questions or concerns about the study, please do not hesitate to
contact me at jalaiman@usc.edu. I am more than happy to provide any clarification you may
need.
I hope you will consider participating in this study. Your valuable input will make a
significant impact in advancing our knowledge of this important topic. Together, we can create a
more equitable and inclusive C-suite for Black women executives.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Warm regards,
Jalaima Nichols
Doctoral Candidate, Organizational Change and Leadership
University of Southern California
jalaiman@usc.edu
240-353-7569

201
Appendix D: A Priori Coding Table
Primary codes Secondary codes Tertiary codes
Black feminist thought Intersectionality Consciousness
Self-valuation
Othering
Representation First or lonely only
Inclusion/belonging
Underestimation/exploitation
Individuality Self-definition
Unicorn
Excellence Dream fulfillment
Legacy
Self-efficacy Fortitude Motivation
Resilience
Socialization Historical oppression
Trauma
Fear
Imposter syndrome Confidence and self-regulation
Vulnerability and reactance Self-awareness
White allyship Accomplice/co-conspirator Risk-taker/action-oriented truthteller
Pre/post-murder of George Floyd
Saviorism Declarative/performative
Career resource Mentor/sponsor/advocate/champion
Unconscious bias
Macro/microaggressions
Networking Connections Friends versus strangers
Circle versus corner
Community Support ecosystems
Affinity groups
Cross-industry/cross-discipline
Isolation Self-protection
Accountability Self-evaluation
Best practices/process improvement
Appendix D: A Priori Coding Table

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Seeds of solidarity: exploring transformation, resistance, and community building through everyday acts between Black women and White women co-conspirators

PDF

Beyond commitments: a qualitative examination of the persistent disparities faced by Black women in executive leadership roles post the 2020 crisis and beyond

PDF

Canaries in the mine: centering the voices of Black women DEI practitioners in a period of DEI resistance

PDF

A lens looking at hair discourse and experiences of Black women through intersectionality and Black feminist thought

PDF

Empowering Black women: Navigating breast cancer care and survivorship

PDF

Exploring the barriers that contribute to the underrepresentation of Black women in C-suite roles in corporate America

PDF

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

PDF

Black brilliance in leadership: increasing the number of Black women in the senior executive service

PDF

Exhaustion of Black women in corporate settings: a study to identify helpful interventions

PDF

A comparative case study on the impact of Black male teachers on implementing inclusive and antiracist practices in elementary-middle education

PDF

Leading from the margins: exploring the perspectives of Black women in leadership roles at predominantly white institutions

PDF

Teacher well-being matters: an explorative study of early childhood teacher well-being, their experiences, and perspectives

PDF

“Black at”: a study of Black girls in predominantly White independent K–12 girls’ schools

PDF

Institutional discrimination against Black men in Fortune 500 companies: a phenomenological study

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

An autoethnographic examination of Black boys attending predominantly white K-12 private schools

PDF

Clearing the path for Black male Connecticut educators in predominantly White institutions

PDF

Leading from the margins: an intersectional qualitative analysis of the leadership experiences of Black mothers

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American women in corporate leadership roles

PDF

Outside the concrete wall: a qualitative study of Black women persisting in technology

Asset Metadata

Creator Nichols, Jalaima (author)

Core Title Leading as outsiders within the C-suite: a phenomenological study of Black women C-suite executives’ perspectives on White allyship in corporate America

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/30/2024

Defense Date 04/05/2024

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

Tag agency,allyship,Black Feminist Thought,Black women executives,c-suite,Fortune 500,intersectionality,lack of representation,networking,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,White allyship

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Taylor Page, Erika (committee member), (Hinga, Briana)

Creator Email jalaimagraham@gmail.com,jalaiman@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113911910

Unique identifier UC113911910

Identifier etd-NicholsJal-12861.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-NicholsJal-12861

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Nichols, Jalaima

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240503-usctheses-batch-1145 (batch), 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.

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