University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

(USC Thesis Other)

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Underrepresentation of Women in the U.S. Banking Industry ’s Top Executive Roles:
Why Doesn ’t the CEO Look Like Me?
by
Stacey L. Howell Wayman

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

August 2022

© Copyright by Stacey L. Howell Wayman 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Stacey L. Howell Wayman certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kathy Stowe
Eric Canny
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Despite legislation such as Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act aimed at creating gender diversity
in top executive/c-suite roles in financial services, women remain underrepresented in the
banking industry. The underrepresentation of women in top executive roles in the banking
industry is significant because the banking industry represents aa strategic component of
economic development and sustainability in all communities. Since banks serve diverse
communities, they must remain relevant to its diverse stakeholders. The purpose of the study was
to ascertain the long-term career goals of women in the banking industry, to understand women’s
perspectives about the factors that facilitate or inhibit their aspirations, and the policies and
programs their organizations have implemented to foster gender diversity in top executive/c-suite
roles. The theoretical and conceptual framework was based upon Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
model of development. The methodology of the study was a mixed-method survey with
participants who self-identified as women and had worked in the banking industry a minimum of
3 years. The findings of the study were commensurate with previous literature in identifying
factors that facilitate (mentorship, sponsorship, hiring practices, career paths) or inhibit (gender
bias, gender sidelining, lack of organizational supports) women’s career aspirations. The study
generated recommendations for practice to provide organizational supports that encourage
women to follow career aspirations regardless of level.
Keywords: banking industry, top executive, c-suite, gender diversity, mentorship,
sponsorship, career paths, gender bias, gender sidelining

v
Dedication
To my parents who raised me to believe I had the cape all along and that of anything I may
accomplish or gifts I have, kindness is the most important. Thank you for making me who I am.

To my little brother who left us 30 years ago, you can never know how important you have been
to remind me of what matters most in this life and how proud of me I hope you are.

To my son and bonus daughters, may you never doubt that you can achieve your dreams, that
you are worth the effort, and that you hold my love and pride for the amazing humans you are.

To my husband, most importantly, for your unwavering support, for pushing me when
motivation waned, for calming my tears and fears, and for holding me up, you inspire me to be a
better person in every way. There is no doubt that this work does not happen without you beside
me. Thank you for encouraging me to pursue this dream and remember, it’s “Doctor Daisy” now.

vi
Acknowledgements
This journey would not have been the same without the support of my Rockstar Study
Group whose moral support and humor made the path so enjoyable. I am especially grateful to
Claire Davies, my “USC lobster,” for being my sounding board, peer review aficionado, and dear
friend.
To the many women in financial services that I have had the pleasure to work with and
the privilege to know, thank you for inspiring me in ways I may never repay. And to the 66
women who took part in this study, I hope I represent you well.
Most importantly, it is with sincere gratitude that I thank my dissertation committee
members Dr. Kathy Stowe, and Dr. Eric Canny, and my committee chair, Dr. Courtney Malloy. I
am so fortunate to have such professional, insightful, and thoughtful academics guiding me on
this journey. Thank you for your energy, your time, and your passion for this topic. I hope I have
made you proud of this work.
Fight On!
.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication (Optional) ......................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...................................................................3
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................4
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................6
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ...........................................................................................9
History of Women Entering the Banking Industry and Legislation Furthering Their
Advancement .......................................................................................................................9
Factors Underlying the Underrepresentation of Women in Top Executive Roles in the
Banking Industry ................................................................................................................17
Existing Strategies to Support Women’s Advancement ....................................................29
Theoretical Application .....................................................................................................35
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................39
Research Questions ............................................................................................................39
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................39
Research Setting.................................................................................................................40
The Researcher...................................................................................................................40
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................41

viii
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................44
Ethics..................................................................................................................................45
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................47
Participants .........................................................................................................................48
Research Question 1: What Are the Long-Term Career Goals of Women in the
Banking Industry? ..............................................................................................................52
Research Question 2A: What Are the Perceptions of Women in the Banking Industry
Regarding the Factors that Inhibit Women’s Ascent to Top Executive Roles? ................61
Research Question 2B: What Are the Perceptions of Women in the Banking Industry
Regarding the Factors That Facilitate Women’s Ascent to Top Executive Roles .............68
Research Question Three: What Are the Perceptions of Women in the Banking
Industry Regarding the Strategies That Are Being Used To Promote Women to Top
Executive Roles? ................................................................................................................72
Summary ............................................................................................................................77
Chapter Five: Discussion ...............................................................................................................79
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................79
Recommendations ..............................................................................................................85
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................96
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................97
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................98
References ....................................................................................................................................101
Appendix A: Online Survey.........................................................................................................112

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Participants’ Selections of C-Suite Roles in Their Organizations Held by Women 49
Table 2: Survey Participants’ Current Roles in Their Organization 50
Table 3: Participants’ Perspectives on Why They Do Not Imagine Themselves in Top
Executive/C-Suite Roles 55
Table 4: Participants’ Description of Their Long-Term Career Goals 57
Table 5: Participants’ Perceptions of Factors That Inhibit the Advancement of Women to Top
Executive/C-Suite Roles 62
Table 6: Participant-Identified Factors That Inhibit Women From Advancing to Top
Executive/C-Suite Roles 65
Table 7: Participants’ Perception of Implemented Operating Policies To Foster the
Promotion of Women to Top Executive/C-Suite Roles 69
Table 8: Participants’ Recommendations to Their Organizations To Increase Gender
Diversity in Top Executive/C-Suite Roles 73

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Women in the Banking Industry Conceptual Framework 38
Figure 2: Participants’ Interest in Serving in a Top Executive/C-Suite Role in Their Current
Organization 53

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
There is an underrepresentation of women in top executive roles in the U.S. banking
industry. Women comprise 54.3% of the workforce in the U.S. banking industry, and 11% serve
in managerial/executive roles, and less than 4.31% hold the chief executive officer (CEO)
position (Catalyst, 2020; Haslett & Dholakia, 2018). Further, most women in the banking
industry assume CEO roles at the smallest (under $1 billion in assets) or financially struggling
banks (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019; Haslett & Dholakia, 2018). For women of color who
comprise 24% of the total workforce statistics are at 4.0% holding c-suite roles (Thomas et al.,
2021). In the country’s largest economy, for example, California’s top 15 banks report that
executive board representation by women of color is an average of 9% (De’Zhon & Elhalaby,
2020).
The underrepresentation of women in top executive roles in the banking industry is
significant because the banking industry represents a strategic component of economic
development and sustainability. Banks rely heavily on the trust of consumers and businesses to
make their organizational reputation relevant (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018). An executive board
that reflects the bank’s gender-diverse stakeholder base is critical to maintaining credibility and a
positive reputation (Perrault, 2015). Further, evidence abounds that gender-diverse boards lead to
improved organizational performance (Geyfman et al., 2018; Noland et al., 2016; Oyotode-
Adebile & Ali Raja, 2019; Rossi et al., 2017). Gender-diverse boards have shown net profits six
percentage points higher, as much as 20 times larger asset size, and 15 times higher net income
(Geyfman et al., 2018; Noland et al., 2016).
This study focused on ascertaining the perspectives of women in the banking industry
regarding their long-term career goals, the factors that inhibit and factors that facilitate their
2

ascension to top executive roles in the banking industry, and the strategies banks currently have
in place to foster gender diversity among those roles. Promotion to leadership happens at much
lower rates for women than men making gender diversity in the c-suite much more difficult to
achieve (Thomas et al., 2021). Over 93% of the participants in this study held positions below
the c-suite. The participants provided insights into their career aspirations and the organizational
support they receive as well as the challenges they face in attaining them. The findings in this
study indicate some of the gaps that banks must address to develop women on their journeys to
top executive roles.
Background of the Problem
The business of banking has been a societal foundation since ancient Babylonians and
Athenians. Banking has functioned as the conduit to lending and saving money, earning, and
charging interest, and impacting the success and failure of world economies. The U.S. banking
industry originated in the 18
th
century and today includes retail, commercial, and investment
banking services (Newman, 2020). The banking industry remains a constant in the development
of commerce, industry, and infrastructure throughout American history.
Since incorporating The Bank of North America in 1781 as an institution to conduct
supplies transactions for the patriot militia near the end of the Revolutionary War, the U.S.
government has influenced the U.S. banking industry (Newman, 2020). U.S. government
influence includes more modern legislation intended to correct inconsistencies and create the
opportunity that should benefit women in the industry, such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Glass Ceiling Act (1995), and Section342 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Other U.S. government influence includes regulatory entities such as the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and
3

the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (Orbach, 2017; Weitz, 2016). Despite legislation and
initiatives aimed at leveling opportunities for marginalized people, the underrepresentation of
women in top executive roles in the banking industry remains.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to identify the barriers that prevent women’s ascent to top
executive roles in the banking industry and the programs and policies that may address them.
Further, this study aimed to gauge women’s long-term career goals. To pursue this end, the
following research questions were considered:
RQ 1: What are the long-term goals of women in the banking industry?
RQ 2a: What are the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding the factors
that inhibit women’s ascent to top executive/c-suite roles?
RQ 2b: What are the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding the factors
that facilitate women’s ascent to top executive/c-suite roles?
RQ 3: What are the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding the strategies
that are being used to promote women to top executive/c-suite roles?
The broader aim for conducting this study was that organizations may develop programs to
address the barriers to support women’s pursuit of top executive roles in the banking industry.
Further, by identifying these factors, organizations may be informed of potential factors affecting
other marginalized groups and may begin examining ways to overcome them.
Significance of the Study
Banks whose organizational frameworks fail to support women’s advancement to the c-
suite lack gender diversity and may experience a variety of negative impacts from its reputation
to its bottom line. Research posits that organizations that include women in their top executive/c-
4

suite roles benefit from higher profitability, smoother operations, and greater confidence among
external investors (Geyfman et al., 2018; Perrault, 2015; Rossi et al., 2017). Financial
organizations that include women in top executive roles engage different cognitive ideas,
attitudes, beliefs, and perspectives. From the standpoint of organizational performance,
organizations with the highest percentage of women executives experience net profits six percent
higher than their competition (Noland et al., 2016). Further, banks with more women on its board
of directors (BODs) reported 20 times larger asset size and 15 times higher net income (Geyfman
et al., 2018). Women leaders deliver support to their teams to positively influence job
satisfaction, burnout, turnover intention, and recommending their organization to others all of
which reduce organization’s costs (Thomas et al., 2021).
Perrault (2015) asserted that organizations that include women in top executive roles
further enhance the perception of relational and moral legitimacy, ability, benevolence, and
integrity, which may elevate an organization’s corporate governance. The importance of
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) as a component of corporate governance continues to be
in the spotlight. Women leaders more actively champion DE&I efforts than their male
counterparts (Thomas et al., 2021). Demands from shareholders, the stock market, the federal
government, and social movements prioritize measuring corporate accountability to provide
board diversity and cultures fostering DE&I (Alcorn, 2021; Resnick & Fuller, 2021). Identifying
and addressing barriers could inform organizations’ DE&I initiatives to advance women and
achieve organizational performance goals.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated the theoretical framework frames and scaffolds a study.
Grant and Osanloo (2016) compared the theoretical framework of a study to the foundation of a
5

house upon which the problem statement, purpose, and research questions of the study are
constructed. The theoretical framework to inform the study was Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
ecological model of human development.
Bronfenbrenner developed this model on his contention that the relationship between the
person and environment are created and shaped reciprocally (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008).
Bronfenbrenner’s model examines behavior and development of the person within the
environment they create and the interactions between the person and environment in the context
of their societal and historical settings (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008). Bronfenbrenner’s model
was applied to this study with women in the banking industry at the center. For the purposes of
this study and discussion I referred to the woman and women, and uses the pronouns she/her/hers,
and they/their/theirs.
Bronfenbrenner’s model considers the interconnectedness between the microsystem
(immediate setting which includes the woman) and the nested, surrounding systems to include
mesosystem (relationship between systems), exosystem (events in settings where the woman is
not present), and macrosystem (social ideologies and values of cultures and subcultures).
Bronfenbrenner’s model was appropriate for this study which aimed to identify the
environmental mechanisms that are missing or in place to support women’s ascent to c-suite
roles in the banking industry. Bronfenbrenner’s model considers not only the interactions
between the individual and the systems influencing her development but also her perceptions that
these support mechanisms exist.
To explore the experiences and perceptions of women in the banking industry about their
environment, I utilized a mixed-method survey. This allowed me to gather data from a larger
population sample and meet dissertation completion expectations. The findings which blend
6

participants’ responses to open-ended and quantitative questions regarding long-term career
goals and the factors that facilitate or hinder them are discussed in Chapter Four.
Definition of Terms
This study included and explained key terms to understanding the underrepresentation of
women in top executive roles in the banking industry. These terms were derived from prior
research on the topic and the banking industry. These key terms include:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I): Executive Order 14035, signed by President
Biden on June 25, 2021, includes language that defines each term comprising DE&I. While this
study pertains to one underserved community, women, I relied on the definitions in Executive
Order 14035 (2021) which states,
Financial services industry: The financial services industry includes banking, mortgage,
investment, and insurance sub-industries. Women in the banking industry were considered for
the purposes of this study.
Gender bias: Gender bias is prejudices and discrimination based on the gender of a
person (Correll, 2017).
Gender discrimination: Gender-based, unequal treatment of individuals or groups that is
encouraged by social mechanisms such as cultural beliefs, policies, and practices (Fink, 2018).
Gender sidelining: Gender sidelining is a form of bias that occurs in the workplace as
collective incidents that minimize women’s contributions and inaccurately portray women’s
achievements (Fink, 2018).
The term “diversity” means the practice of including the many communities, identities,
races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, and beliefs of the American people,
including underserved communities. The term “equity” means the consistent and
7

systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment. The term
“inclusion” means the recognition, appreciation, and use of the talents and skills of
employees of all backgrounds.
Glass ceiling metaphor: The glass ceiling metaphor, introduced in the 1980s, refers to the
invisible and artificial barriers preventing women (and minorities) from ascending to
management and top executive roles in organizations (Johns, 2013).
Leaders: The merriam-webster.com (2022) website includes in its definition “a person
who leads” as well as words such as directs, commands, manages, and presides over (para. 2). In
this study, the term “leader” includes all formal positions wherein the roles and responsibilities
include the person described having direct reports for whose performance they must account.
Examples in the banking industry include branch or financial center manager, sales team
manager, market or district or regional manager, and executive leader positions.
Snowball, chain, or network sampling: A strategy of sampling in research that relies on
engaging key participants who meet the criteria for participation in a study then asking the
participants to refer other participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, participants from
my LinkedIn network were solicited and asked to share the study with other women in the
banking industry.
Top executive roles: C-suite roles in the banking industry are high-ranking executive
positions in the organization. In this study, top executive roles refer to the highest position in the
c-suite, the CEO and the c-suite positions considered most likely to promote to CEO, the chief
financial officer (CFO), and the chief operation officer (COO).
8

White collar: White collar refers to non-skilled labor positions that were generally
regarded as less important than industrial and manufacturing jobs during the World War II-era
(Rose, 2018). Examples of the roles regarded as white-collar positions include clerical and
banking work (Booker, 2015).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One provides the statement of the problem of practice, the purpose of the current
study, and the importance of the problem of the underrepresentation of women in top executive
roles in the banking industry. Chapter Two aims to synthesize existing literature and prior
research to provide a more transparent and broader understanding of the barriers and potential
reasons for the underrepresentation of women in top executive roles in the banking industry.
Study methodology, design, and the frameworks supporting them will be covered in Chapter
Three. Chapter Four presents the study data and analysis. Chapter Five includes the discussion of
the study findings relative to the research questions and recommendations based on the findings.
This chapter will also include insights into the study’s limitations as well as recommendations
for future studies.

9

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Chapter Two is a literature review examining the history of women entering the
workforce, legislation intended to protect women’s interests in the workplace, and barriers
underlying underrepresentation in top executive roles in the banking industry. The review begins
with a brief overview of women entering the U.S. workforce and their swift evolution to roles
aligned with the modern banking industry. Next, research and discussion of commonly identified
factors that inhibit women’s ascension to top executive roles in the banking industry are
introduced. Specifically considered are gender bias and discrimination, the perceived role of
women in the home and workplace, and the environmental factors to support women’s career
advancement. Existing strategies to address the factors that inhibit women’s ascension to top
executive roles found within the literature are discussed. Chapter Two concludes with a
comprehensive conceptual framework.
History of Women Entering the Banking Industry and Legislation Furthering Their
Advancement
History of Women Entering the Banking Industry
Women entered the U.S. workforce to answer the nation’s wartime manufacturing needs
(Bellou & Cardia, 2017; Booker, 2015; Rose, 2018). The industrial mobilization of World War II
(WWII) allowed women to enter the workforce in high-wage manufacturing roles or transition to
these roles from white-collar positions. Production roles were imperative to the industrial
mobilization spawned by WWII when plants were converted for wartime contracts and
manufacturing (Rose, 2018). The term “Rosie,” coined in 1942, defined the women who
assumed industrial jobs that men held before WWII (Booker, 2015). Thus, Rosie the Riveter
became the iconic symbol of White women in manufacturing during WWII.
10

The WWII draft also sent millions of American men into military service resulting in a
significant increase of women in the workplace (Bellou & Cardia, 2017). Further, WWII’s
industrial mobilization and higher wages created a permanence of women in manufacturing roles
and a diminished number of women in white-collar roles (Bellou & Cardia, 2017). The total
number of women in the U.S. workforce increased by nearly 50% or roughly 6.7 million with
nearly three million women in manufacturing roles. Overall, they constituted a 12% increase in
total female employment between 1940 and March 1944 (Rose, 2018).
However, just as quickly as women were drawn into higher-wage manufacturing roles,
the return and reintegration of soldiers into the U.S. workforce pushed women out of workplaces
or jobs markets altogether (Rose, 2018). Women who stayed in the jobs market often returned to
lesser-paying white-collar positions such as clerical and banking work (Booker, 2015). White-
collar positions carried lower compensation and were viewed as less valuable or necessary to
support the American family. Viewpoints about the value of clerical and banking jobs may have
contributed to the stigma that remains that women’s work is also less valuable (Booker, 2015).
Though in modern times, white-collar jobs may be considered status roles for the better
educated who earn higher salaries, post-WWII, these roles required less sought-after skills and
paid much less than blue-collar jobs (Booker, 2015; Rose, 2018). Advocates for women in the
workplace anticipated the potential postwar employment shifts that could move women from
blue-collar to white-collar jobs (Bellou & Cardia, 2017). The work of these advocates marked
the beginning of legislative attempts to protect women’s interests in the workplace.
11

Legislation Aimed to Advance Women in the Workplace
Executive Order 8802
In June 1941, early women’s equal employment advocates Mary McLeod Bethune, A.
Philip Randolph, and Eleanor Roosevelt pressed President Roosevelt to issue Executive Order
8802 (EO8802). EO8802 banned discriminatory employment practices of any organization
engaged in government contracts that supported war efforts (Booker, 2015). While this
resolution specifically mentioned discrimination based on race and gender, women of color
(WOC) were rarely considered for higher-wage manufacturing roles. Instead, they filled the low-
skill and lesser-paying clerical work that White women had abandoned (Bellou & Cardia, 2017).
As men returned from war, the workforce shifts pushed many WOC out of these roles which
were again awarded to White women (Booker, 2015).
Roosevelt’s EO8802 was limited by the extent of his control to effect change in
advancing women in the workplace where government contracts were fulfilled (Booker, 2015).
However, EO8802 may have inspired the possibility that change could happen. As a result,
women’s equal opportunities continued emerging for the next 74 years through legislation such
as the Equal Pay for Equal Work Bill (1944), Equal Pay Act of 1963, Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Glass Ceiling Act of 1991, and Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act 2010.
Equal Pay Act of 1963
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 evolved from the Equal Pay for Equal Work Bill introduced
in 1944 by Winifred Stanley. Stanley’s work effectively built on Roosevelt’s EO8802 but
expanded accountability beyond government contract work. Her foresight on the negative impact
the end of WWII and men returning to high-wage manufacturing jobs would have on women’s
status in the workplace was the catalyst to propose the 1944 Bill (Equal Pay Act, 1963).
12

Stanley’s bill remained stagnant until President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The
purpose of this bill is to “prohibit discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by
employers engaged in commerce or production of goods for commerce” (Equal Pay Act, 1963).
This legislation expanded Roosevelt’s EO8802 to all employers and brought Stanley’s initiative
into being.
The Equal Pay Act has not fulfilled the intention to bridge the gender pay gap. Women
16 and older in the U.S. workforce in 2020 would need to work 42 additional days to make up
the 16% pay gap to earn equal to men (Barroso & Brown, 2021). As many as one in four women
have reported earning less than men in their workplace performing the same job (Barroso &
Brown, 2021). When asked the most critical factors to achieve societal gender equality,
respondents focused on equality in the workplace, rating equal pay (45%), non-discriminatory
hiring and promotion practices (19%), equal respect for men and women (5%), and improved
paternity/maternity paid leave and support (2%; Mitchell, 2020).
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 may often be referenced as defining legislation for persons
of color (POC), but the act also benefits women. The purpose of the Act is “to enforce the
constitutional right to … confer jurisdiction … to provide injunctive relief against discrimination
in public accommodations … to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public
education … to establish a Commission for Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other
purposes” (Civil Rights Act, 1964). Seen as a victory to POC earning the right to vote, this
legislation also expanded the responsibility and accountability to prevent discrimination against
women.
13

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) expands the workplace interpretation of this
legislation by prohibiting employment discrimination based on gender, among other
characteristics (EEOC, n.d.). As such, Title VII should support women in the banking industry
seeking opportunities to advance their careers. However, although women comprise 54.3% of the
U.S. banking industry workforce, they hold only 11% of managerial/executive roles with less
than 4.3% in the CEO position of their organization (Catalyst, 2020; Haslett & Dholakia, 2018).
Title VII has been narrowly interpreted to hiring practices (Fink, 2018). A broader application to
aspects of employment such as compensation and promotion may have prevented the seemed
acceptance of the glass ceiling.
The glass ceiling metaphor, introduced in the 1980s, refers to the invisible and artificial
barriers preventing women (and minorities) from ascending to management and top executive
roles in organizations (Johns, 2013). The glass ceiling has also been identified as an influencing
factor on women’s decision to discontinue pursuing top executive roles (Kanter, 1987). The glass
ceiling moved beyond a metaphor as legislation specifically named and attempted to address its
limiting characteristics. In 1991, Glass Ceiling Act came into existence through a legislative
amendment known as the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Civil Rights Act of 1991
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA1991) is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of
1964. The act aims to provide additional remedies under the protection of federal law against
unlawful harassment and intentional workplace discrimination. It provides damages in cases of
intentional employment discrimination and protections to discrimination victims. It further
defines unlawful employment practices pertaining to gender when the victim demonstrates
14

gender was a “motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also
motivated the practice.”
Glass Ceiling Act 1991
The broadened remedies and protections of CRA1991 also informed the enactment of the
Glass Ceiling Act (GCA, 1991) and established the Glass Ceiling Commission (GCC; Johns,
2013). The GCC aimed to study how businesses fill management and decision-maker roles and
how they develop and enhance employees’ skills to meet the qualifications for such roles. The
commission further examined workplace compensation and reward structures. Finally, the
commission created an annual award for organizations demonstrating diversity in such roles
(Johns, 2013).
By 1995, the GCC reported women held just three to five percent of CEO roles in
Fortune 500 companies. Further, women holding c-suite roles were in H.R. or research roles,
kept out of important decision-making positions like CEO/CFO/COO (Rincón et al., 2017), and
were paid less than their male counterparts (Johns, 2013). By comparison, virtually no progress
has been made in the banking industry, where women command only 4.31% of CEO roles
(Haslett & Dholakia, 2018). Further, the women workforce earns 20% less than men annually
(Miller & Vagins, 2018).
Section 342 Dodd-Frank Act
The legislation explicitly addressing the underrepresentation of women in the banking
industry came after the 2008 financial crisis through Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act, referred
heretofore as Sect.342 (Fullerton & Kaufman, 2014). Section 342 established the requirement for
all federal financial agencies, of which there are six, to create an Office of Minority and Women
Inclusion (OMWI) that oversees “all matters concerning diversity in management, employment,
15

and business activities” of the regulated entities that report to them (SEC, n.d.). The agencies
created a standard model to assess their respective reporting entities (Fullerton & Kaufman,
2014). The adopted model includes self-assessment of proposed standards by the respective
entity. The model includes provisions for voluntary disclosure of self-assessment results to the
respective agency and publication of the entity’s efforts to comply with proposed standards. The
model does not include enforcement provisions. Agencies, however, are compelled to annually
report to Congress its findings and any actions taken (SEC, n.d.).
Sect.342 has shown a positive impact on a few women’s data (Geyfman et al., 2018). The
percentage of women on boards of directors (BoDs) increased from 10.3% before to 12.2% after
Dodd-Frank. From 2007 to 2015, the number of banks with no women on their BoD decreased
one percentage point per year from 39% to 31%. Further, the number of banks with three or
more women on their BoD nearly doubled between 2007 and 2015 from 7.4% to 13.5%
(Geyfman et al., 2018). While some increase may be attributed to bank consolidations which
became more prevalent after the financial crisis, the results demonstrate positive movement.
Sect.342 also calls for directors of the agencies to establish standards for diversity among
its workforce and senior management. Sect.342 further provides expectations that agency
directors foster “increased participation” of women- and minority-owned businesses which the
agency contracts (SEC, n.d.). Directors are also responsible for assessing the diversity practices
and policies of the entities it regulates.
Sect.342, however, remains ambiguous regarding gender and race diversity goals
(Geyfman et al., 2018). Sect.342 includes no specific goals, quotas, or expected results that
define and measure participation levels (Geyfman et al., 2018). Participation levels do not reflect
marginalized population statistics.
16

For example, Bank of America, the second-largest bank in the United States, holds assets
of $2.32 trillion (Damian, 2021, August 9). Bankofamerica.com provides workforce statistics
and biographies for its executive committee members. Despite women representing 50% of Bank
of America’s workforce, women hold only 35% of the executive committee and three of the ten
executive roles. Women hold the chiefs of human resources, audit, and administrative officer
roles. Men hold all three of the top executive roles, CEO/CFO/COO, as well as the incoming-
CFO role (Bank of America, n.d.).
Gender Quota Laws
Countries like Norway, France, Sweden, and Italy have enacted laws to compel board
gender diversity (Rossi et al., 2017). Italy’s government established the Golfo-Mosca Law
(GML) in 2011. GML establishes quotas for the number of women on company BoDs.
The initial quota required that 20% of new board seats be reserved for the
underrepresented gender (male or female; De Vita & Magliocco, 2018). For second and third
BoD appointments after 2012, the requirement moves to 33% of seats held by the
underrepresented gender. In the United States, by comparison, Sect.342 leaves quota goals and
requirements to state legislatures. For example, California state law SB 826 (2018) required all
California-headquartered public companies to have at least one woman on their BoDs by the end
of 2019 (Resnick & Fuller, 2021).
Another effect of GML’s gender quota requirements is diversifying BoDs’ average age,
education level, and professional skills (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018). Before GML, Italian
women held 4.5% of BoD seats, which was behind the E.U.’s 11.9% average representation (De
Vita & Magliocco, 2018). This number increased to 29.75% in 2017. However, women in the top
executive roles remain at 6.06%, with most progress being found in non-executive leadership
17

roles (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018; Rossi et al., 2017). Another issue of gender quotas is the
potential “cosmetic gender diversity” (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018, p. 689) which is the
appointment of women to BoDs but not in top executive decision-making functions.
Cosmetically adding women to the BoD addresses quota requirements but may not wholly fulfill
women’s career desires and goals (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018).
Countries around the globe enacting legislation aimed at gender diversity on BoDs, by its
nature, acknowledges and attempts to address an identified problem. Based on the literature
presented in this section, other factors that inhibit women’s ascension to top executive/c-suite
roles must exist. Next is the review of literature about factors underlying the underrepresentation
of women in top executive roles in the banking industry.
Factors Underlying the Underrepresentation of Women in Top Executive Roles in the
Banking Industry
Gender Bias and Discrimination
The lack of representation of women in top executive roles remains a global problem
(Burke et al., 2008; De Vita & Magliocco, 2018; Noland et al., 2016). Noland et al.’s (2016)
analysis of a global survey with a sample size of 21,980 firms in 91 countries found that nearly
60% of firms have no female board members. Just over half of these firms do not have women in
their top executive roles, with less than 5% reporting a woman as CEO (Noland et al., 2016).
Despite lessons from the worldwide financial crisis in the middle 2010’s increasing the
pressure to rebuild images of banks through gender diversity as inclusive and reliable, most
additions of women to BoDs appear related to the legislative requirements previously discussed
(De Vita & Magliocco, 2018). Women in the banking industry are higher educated and younger
than their male counterparts yet do not have the same opportunities to advance to leadership
18

roles (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018). With legislation focused on diminishing discrimination and
expanding gender diversity, this research indicates issues surrounding gender may continue
impacting opportunity of women in the banking industry.
Gender Sidelining
Fink (2018) posited that “gender sidelining” is a contributing barrier to women’s
ascension to top executive roles. Gender sidelining is a form of bias that occurs in the workplace
as collective incidents that minimize women’s contributions and inaccurately portray women’s
achievements (Fink, 2018). Gender sidelining bias erects barriers to development opportunities
and mentorship, and places women under greater scrutiny in their role. Further, gender sidelining
negatively impacts leaders’ perceptions of women and women’s self-visualization in leader roles
(Fink, 2018).
According to Fink (2018), the justice system’s narrow definition of Title VII requires
negligence that actions or statements materially affect pay or promotion in the workplace.
Adverse actions under the court’s definition do include negative actions related to hiring/firing,
failing to promote, and reassigning to roles with significantly different responsibilities.
Nevertheless, the actions Fink says fall under gender sidelining are not enough to warrant legal
action by women employees. Fink (2018) referred to these as examples of “unactionable
discrimination.” Though two-thirds of U.S. adults say that not seeing gender discrimination is a
big problem, the nuances of bias that permeate gender sidelining make it nearly impossible for
employers to identify and act on every incident (Fink, 2018; Mitchell, 2020). Even cumulatively,
incidents that brush women aside, undermine her ideas, upstage her efforts, or ignore her
contributions rarely meet the “adverse action” requirement (Fink, 2018; Mitchell, 2020).
19

Gender sidelining may be most prevalent in the corporate world and can be seen in the
daily interactions where women find themselves disadvantaged over male peers (Fink, 2018).
Thirty-three percent of women indicate their gender as a barrier to pay increases, promotions, or
advancement opportunities (Krivkovich et al., 2016). Women’s perceptions of disadvantages
compared to men manifest in several areas including opportunities to participate, develop, and
share value (Krivkovich et al., 2016).
Women perceive their opportunity to meaningfully participate in meetings 67% of the
time compared to 74% for men (Krivkovich et al., 2016). Women report that they receive
challenging assignments crucial for leadership development 62% of the time compared to 68%
for men. Compared to men, women report their personal contributions are appropriately valued
49% of the time versus 54% of the time Krivkovich et al., 2016). Finally, women report they are
sought for decision-making input in critical situations 56% of the time compared to 63% for men
(Krivkovich et al., 2016). Gender sidelining, however, negatively affects the entire organization,
including men (Fink, 2018). Thomas et al. (2020) indicated women’s perceived limitations due
to bias in the workplace result in diminished participation.
Gender sidelining silences women’s voices because they feel disvalued or disrespected,
thus forcing them to assume more passive roles furthering perceptions that women may be
ineffective or weak leaders (Fink, 2018). Gender sidelining can leave women feeling unseen or
unheard. Further, the success of both genders in the workplace is impacted when the resource
women bring is not leveraged (Krivkovich et al., 2016). Ultimately, gender sidelining negatively
impacts women’s desire and ambition to advance, resulting in women opting out of professional
opportunities (Fink, 2018; Kanter, 1987; Krivkovich et al., 2016).
20

Gender Bias
Gender bias and discrimination as identified barriers to women’s advancement frequently
appears in literature (Burke et al., 2008; De Vita & Magliocco, 2018; Fink, 2018; Noland et al.,
2016). Women and men attain entry-level positions relatively equally; however, the number of
women in the workforce decreases by nearly half when the cohort reaches mid-management
levels (Noland et al., 2016). Women opting out of professional opportunities further reduces the
number of women who continue advancing to top executive leadership roles (Fink, 2018; Kanter,
1987; Noland et al., 2016).
Gender bias impacts women’s career advancement and the income gap between women
and men (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018; Krivkovich et al., 2016). Organizations hire twice as
many men as women as directors and three times more as senior vice-presidents (SVPs). Women
are nearly 30% less likely to be promoted to managers from within the organization than men
(Krivkovich et al., 2016). Once promoted, women in low-level managerial roles expressed higher
perceptions of bias, were less satisfied, and felt higher stress, further informing potential
decisions to opt out of the workforce (Burke et al., 2008).
Women are hired and promoted less frequently than men and are rarely put on a path to
becoming CEO despite women attaining higher education (Krivkovich et al., 2016). Women are
more likely in staff roles such as human resources., information technology, or legal
departments. At the same time, men benefit from line roles that provide decision-making
opportunities with profit and loss responsibility and core operations of the organization
(Krivkovich et al., 2016). Ninety percent of the new CEOs promoted or hired in 2015 came from
line roles like CFO/COO, and 100% of these promotions were men (Krivkovich et al., 2016).
21

Women ’s Perceptions of Gender Bias
Further, women’s perceptions are that their gender will have a detrimental impact on
receiving a raise, earning a promotion, or being offered opportunities to advance their careers
(Krivkovich et al., 2016). Yet, Mitchell (2020) found that 64% of U.S. adults surveyed view not
enough women in positions of power as an obstacle for organizational success. Since only one in
five senior executives is a woman, it should not be surprising that less than half of women report
seeing people who look like them in senior management (Mitchell, 2020).
Disparities among women’s perceptions in the workplace support the additional
challenges that WOC face in ascending to top executive roles. Though they comprise 20% of the
U.S. population, WOC hold three percent of top executive roles despite possessing higher
aspirations than White women to ascend to the top executive levels (Krivkovich et al., 2016).
Twenty-nine percent of Black women compared to 47% of White women feel the most deserving
employees are rewarded with the best opportunities.
Gender bias can also be found in recruiting and hiring as current managers rely on their
personal networks to identify candidates (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021). Gender bias in
recruiting and hiring limits the candidate pool and leads to homophily. Even ambiguous job
descriptions or language that identifies ideal candidates with traditionally masculine
characteristics deter women from applying for openings despite believing they possess needed
skills (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021). In the hiring phase, managers who feel women, in
general, are less skilled than men overlook female candidates for roles, regardless of the breadth
and depth of the candidate’s resume (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021).
22

Women ’s Role in the Home and Workplace
Women need more social and family support to open new opportunities to overcome
other barriers, such as societal expectations of women’s role in the home and workplace (Kanter,
1987). Sixty-six percent of U.S. adults report that different societal expectations for women are
barriers to career advancement (Mitchell, 2020). The balance between women’s roles in the
home and the workplace is another barrier to women’s ascension to top executive roles.
Fluctuations in work-life balance can periodically occur depending on the professional
demands and life phases women encounter (Cimirotić et al., 2017; Fang et al., 2018). No matter
the life phase, women are more likely than men to assume the pressures of work and family, and
most societies expect it (Bankole & Adeyeri, 2014; Johns, 2013; Noland et al., 2016). The
disproportionate burden, specifically for childcare, places women at a disadvantage and is a
barrier to career advancement.
Women and Motherhood
Women also report nearly twice as often as men (25% and 13%, respectively) that taking
time off for childbirth- or adoption-leave negatively impacted their careers (Barroso & Brown,
2021). Once women become mothers, the disparities continue, with women reporting they were
more often than men treated as though they were not committed to their work and passed over
for important assignments or promotions. Noland et al. (2016) referred to the “mommy track” as
being detrimental to career opportunities. However, the “mommy track” is not limited only to
women who are mothers. Organizations and leaders often regard women in the traditional
childbearing decade (ages 25 to 35) negatively when it comes to investing in them (Noland et al.,
2016). Women who may become mothers report experiencing that their organizations are less
23

likely to develop or promote them because of potential maternity leave or maternal obligations
derailing their careers (Noland et al., 2016).
While some women report that motherhood did not prevent career advancement, they
also indicate that combining motherhood and career was contingent on other factors such as
work-schedule flexibility after pregnancy and maternity leave (Cimirotić et al., 2017). Cultural
differences may also inform women’s perspectives about their family obligations negatively
impacting career advancement. Women report fewer limitations if they have the support of
extended family members for childcare needs (Mate et al., 2019). Some women feel that
combining motherhood and career is not possible, thus forcing them to choose constantly.
Women report that expressing an unwillingness to sacrifice family for career advancement is
also a barrier (Mate et al., 2019).
Women and Family Obligations
Women not only feel the conflict between career and motherhood, but women also find
themselves navigating their obligations and societal expectations to care for aging parents and
family members (Johns, 2013). This caregiver role extends throughout a woman’s lifetime and
often carries career penalties when stepping away for family care (Johns, 2013; Mate et al.,
2019). These penalties manifest as lost promotional opportunities, lost momentum in career
standing, and diminished earning power compared to men (Johns, 2013). Women report that the
conflict they experience between work and family negatively impacts work attitudes and
perceived career success (Chauhan & Bhakri, 2022; Shreffler et al., 2019). Women report the
work-family conflict, specifically negative perceptions of married women’s organizational
commitment, hinders their career development (Subramaniam et al., 2013).
24

Women overwhelmingly report challenges with balancing their two roles. Most women
surveyed (64.5%) attested they were unable to complete household chores traditionally
considered part of their role at home (Bankole & Adeyeri, 2014). Of these same women, 92.2%
reported difficulty spending time with their families, with 89.5% expressing dissatisfaction with
their level of family time. Further, nearly 80% of these women reported their families are
dissatisfied with the impact their work schedules have on family time. And of those surveyed,
45.5% felt confident they could balance work schedules and family time (Bankole & Adeyeri,
2014).
The pressures balancing family obligations, career, and the pressures from family
members who feel slighted by women’s work schedules lead to feelings that they must choose
between career and family (Mate et al., 2019).
Societal Expectations of Women
Sixty-six percent of U.S. adults report that different societal expectations for women are
barriers to their career advancement (Mitchell, 2020). Societal norms regarding women’s roles
expect women to be home after work caring for their families (Mate et al., 2019). Additionally,
some cultural norms about women’s role prevent them from meeting non-family member men
outside of work in networking scenarios (Mate et al., 2019). Men hold onto influential roles and
decision-making powers that perpetuate the “boy’s club” (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018). Career
advancement is informed by who participates in networking opportunities (De Vita &
Magliocco, 2018).
Research specific to the banking industry stressed that management and administration
activities need to deepen gender inclusiveness by addressing women’s unique barriers (Fang et
al., 2018). To achieve this, organizations should be mindful of women’s conflicting demands
25

between their roles at home and work in different life phases (Fang et al., 2018). Uddin et al.
(2020) found that perceived family support combined with perceived workplace support and
work-life balance policies (WLBPs) significantly and positively impact women balancing home
and workplace roles. The key to this balance is that women have a positive perception of support
in both domains.
However, organizational culture changes are needed as women who take advantage of
WLBPs report damage to their careers (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021). WLBPs such as
maternity leave or family medical leave to care for elderly parents are more likely to be utilized
by women (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021). Career damage for women occurs because leaders
perceive them as less committed to work and less motivated despite equal performance to male
peers (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021).
Organizational Factors that Influence Women ’s Career Advancement
Sixty-nine percent of female executives surveyed cite the underrepresentation of women
in top executive roles as a barrier and systemic talent management problem (Ammerman &
Groysberg, 2021). Identifying gaps in hiring, promoting, and reviewing performance could
further reduce biases inherent to organizational processes (Krivkovich et al., 2016). To initiate
this change, organizations should shift blame for limited success from a problem inherent to
women to deficiencies in organizational support (Kanter, 1987).
Organizations that focus on deficiencies in organizational support may address the
societal stereotypes about women it perpetuates. Organizations may mitigate the withholding of
opportunities and power from women which ultimately impede an organization’s productivity
(Kanter, 1987). Issues such as the perception of women’s communication, lack of access to
networking opportunities, and a lack of mentor- and sponsorship programs are identified as
26

organizational barriers women face (Johns, 2013). These organizational barriers are experienced
in many ways and are reinforced by the acceptance of the status quo.
Perception of Women ’s Communication
The perception of women’s communication is an example of a barrier present in the
workplace (Johns, 2013). Women who negotiate for promotion or salary increases are 30% more
likely to be deemed “bossy” or “too aggressive” (Krivkovich et al., 2016). Assertive women
communicators are often deemed unlikeable and lack influence in the workplace (Johns, 2103).
Women’s communication is expected to be warmer and less direct than men’s (Johns,
2013; Krivkovich et al., 2016). Warmer and less direct communication styles create doubts in the
perceived abilities of women (Johns, 2013). These doubts underscore the scrutiny on women’s
abilities compared to men. Women are more harshly judged not only in their communication
styles but also in their abilities and skills (Johns, 2013). The additional scrutiny seemingly
equates to a punishment that limits women’s networking access to influencers and decision-
makers in the workplace who could affect career advancement. (Johns, 2013). Being
authoritative or decisive may be lauded in men’s performance yet regarded as temperamental or
difficult in women’s performance (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021).
In addition to perceptions of women as aggressive when asking for promotions, they are
20% less likely than men to receive manager feedback to improve their performance and advance
despite asking for feedback more often (Krivkovich et al., 2016). Managers express reticence to
give direct feedback to women over men (nearly 10% difference) because they are more
concerned about triggering an emotional response (Krivkovich et al., 2016). These cultural
perceptions underscore the gender bias women experience in the workplace that banks must
address to initiate change (Correll, 2017).
27

Networking Opportunities
Women do not have access to the network of influencers in organizations that can support
their advancement (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018). Women identify lack of support due to network
inaccessibility as a barrier to their career advancement (Mate et al., 2019). Lack of access to the
inner circle is negatively impacting women’s aspirations and commitment to pursue
advancement leading to disengagement. This disengagement cultivates feelings of powerlessness
(De Vita & Magliocco, 2018).
Women’s weekly interactions are 11% less likely than men to include company leaders
(Krivkovich et al., 2016). Women have identified that social scenarios for networking are limited
by societal expectations of them and their conflicting career and family roles (Mate et al., 2019).
Limitations such as these underscore the importance of workplace recognition and relationships
with key people who possess power and influence in the organization (Mate et al., 2019). The
lack of growth opportunities which accompany networking scenarios negatively affect women’s
interest in pursuing top executive roles (Krivkovich et al., 2016). Only 40% of women versus as
high as 70% of men are interested in pursuing top executive roles (Johns, 2013; Krivkovich et
al., 2016).
Mentorship and Sponsorship
Further, women stress professional relationships, specifically identifying mentorship or
sponsorship as essential to leadership development (Mate et al., 2019). Ammerman and
Groysberg (2021) posited that many women in senior management were assigned mentors or
sponsors early in their careers to enhance opportunities for advancement. Mentor and sponsor
programs encouraged women’s development by funneling challenging assignments to them,
providing access to high-level meetings, and sponsoring them in promotion conversations. Each
28

of these development opportunities have been shown to increase acumen and improve women’s
chances of promotion to leadership (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021; Krivkovich et al., 2016).
Organizations that create mentoring programs are providing vital support for women’s
advancement (Johns, 2013). These programs should include both male and female successful
leaders to mentor women in identifying goals and the pathways that lead to career advancement
(Johns, 2013).
The Status Quo
Studies show that women are undervalued as a resource in the workplace and are
excluded from decision-making positions within their respective organizations (Fink, 2018;
Kanter, 1987; Rincón et al., 2017; & Rossi et al., 2017). Studies also indicate that women choose
to leave organizations due to lacking advancement opportunities (Ammerman & Groysberg,
2021; Krivkovich et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2021). Perhaps most prevalent when they do not
see women in senior or executive leadership roles (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021).
Discontentment is often reflected in women’s perceptions of organizational injustice
(Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021). One example of how these perceptions manifest is when high-
producing men who demonstrate bad behaviors are rewarded over equally performing women
who meet behavior expectations. Further, women whose professional careers are punished when
they take advantage of WLBPs to manage their conflicting roles feel undervalued and excluded
from promotions (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021; Fink, 2018).
Men feel little urgency for change when they do not fully recognize their culpability as
powerholders or the barriers women experience (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018; Krivkovich et al.,
2016). Nearly 50% of men feel a one in ten representation of women in senior leadership as
acceptable (Krivkovich et al., 2016). Stated another way, nearly half of men are content with a
29

10% representation of women in senior leadership when women represent 54.3% of the banking
industry workforce (Catalyst, 2020). Men’s comfort with the status quo fosters apathy to initiate
change that expands and advances gender diversity in top leadership (Krivkovich et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, men’s support is crucial for organizations to address the structural and
organizational problem of the underrepresentation of women in top executive roles (Kanter,
1987; Krivkovich et al., 2016). The organizational focus for change could lead to greater gender
diversity among top executives and improved organizational performance (Geyfman et al., 2018;
Krivkovich et al., 2016; Noland et al., 2016; & Oyotode-Adebile & Ali Raja, 2019).
Existing Strategies to Support Women ’s Advancement
Addressing and eliminating the barriers to women’s ascension to top executive roles may
require the engagement of multiple strategies. Barriers such as lack of mentor- or sponsorship
program, access to decision-makers, career paths and development, perceived family support,
and workplace support, and gender bias have been cited (Correll, 2017; Haslett & Dholakia,
2018; Kanter, 1987; Mate et al., 2019; Uddin et al., 2020). Because women are an
underleveraged resource in the workplace, banks should examine multiple talent management
areas to determine where the unique perspectives of women are not being considered
(Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021). Banks should establish structures such as networks, recruiters,
and community directories to showcase talent and heighten the profiles of women (Perrault,
2015).
Mentorship and Sponsorship Programs
Previous research has indicated a connection between mentor- and sponsorship programs
and women’s ascension to top executive roles (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021; Mate et al.,
2019; Perrault, 2015). Women report that mentor- and sponsorship programs are critical to
30

overcoming other career barriers (Mate et al., 2019). These programs support access to decision-
makers since mentors and sponsors often come from the pool of successful leaders that includes
men and women of varying races (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021; Johns, 2013). Gaining access
to this inner circle can positively affect women’s aspirations, commitment, and lead to increased
confidence (Kanter, 1987; Mate et al., 2019). Additionally, a diverse pool of mentors and
sponsors can further impact the organization’s DE&I efforts to attract talent and create
opportunities for marginalized groups (Resnick & Fuller, 2021).
Mentoring a woman to top management roles can support breaking through the glass
ceiling (Perrault, 2015). Further, women who are afforded these programs may overcome
cultural and social limitations that prevent informal networking. Overcoming cultural and social
limitations occurs when workplace developmental relationships blend mentor- and sponsorship
and networking within the organization (Mate et al., 2019). These scenarios further dismantle the
old boys network and degrade homophilous networks leading to women gaining access and
expanding growth opportunities to pursue top executive roles (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018;
Perrault, 2015).
Mentor- and sponsorship programs can inform women’s pathways to ascend to top
executive roles (Johns, 2013). Women hold 85% of bank teller roles (Haslett & Dholakia, 2018).
These roles are not considered prominent in the banking industry and may limit leadership
development of the women who hold them. Mentors and sponsors act as advisors to women in
less prominent roles to discover and develop talents and abilities that may expand career options.
Women need the support of mentors and sponsors to guide them on these pathways for
advancement (Johns, 2013).
31

Career Paths and Development
Women presented with unclear parameters for advancement tend to express less
confidence in their skills and fail to self-promote these skills when advancement opportunities
arise (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021; Johns, 2013). Women should be integrated into the
organization, not as a token or outlier. Instead, organizations should foster development through
collaborative approaches to work and culture (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021). Examples
include cross-training programs and self-directed teams of different functional members with
women’s assigned mentors guiding them (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021). These examples
expand women’s possibilities by enhancing confidence in their skills and building a resume of
experiences which apply to future roles.
Women also receive informal feedback less often than men, despite asking for this
feedback as often as men do (Krivkovich et al., 2016). Organizations and leaders should
establish frequent feedback, both formal and informal, as standard practices in the workplace.
Leaders should be trained in delivering fair, impartial feedback based on transparent
performance objectives (Johns, 2013). Unbiased performance feedback can be a crucial
component to women’s continued development and ensure they are on track to reach goals
(Johns, 2013; Krivkovich et al., 2016).
Support at Home and Work
More significant social and family support, including equal distribution of home
responsibilities, is needed to open women’s opportunities to ascend to top executive roles
(Kanter, 1987). Perceived family support is key to women feeling more equity in the distinct
home domain (Uddin et al., 2020). Women are two times more likely to worry that their
performance will be perceived as unsatisfactory because of their caregiving role. Women are 1.5
32

times less likely to share caregiving challenges or needs with their employers (Thomas et al.,
2020). Social and cultural changes can offer support to women when aligned closely with gender
balance that supports men assuming more childcare responsibilities, for example (Noland et al.,
2016).
The balance between perceived family and workplace support can affect women’s career
advancement (Uddin et al., 2020). However, to achieve a balance between home and work
domains, banks could offer programs that address some of the women’s most significant barriers
(Bankole & Adeyeri, 2014; Correll, 2017; Noland et al., 2016; & Uddin et al., 2020). Childcare
and parental leave are barriers that affect women’s opportunities, inform her decision to opt out,
and impact her perception of workplace support (Bankole & Adeyeri, 2014; Johns, 2013;
Thomas et al., 2020; & Uddin et al., 2020).
Women need flexible work arrangements specifically for their role as caregivers (Johns,
2013; Thomas et al., 2020). These arrangements should not come at the expense of women’s
career opportunities but should work together to keep women engaged at work and home.
Flexible work arrangements may include a hybrid schedule for in-office and work-from-home as
well as adjusted work hours (Bankole & Adeyeri, 2014; Thomas et al., 2020). These changes can
make work more sustainable for women (Thomas et al., 2020).
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of employees stated that senior leaders had offered some type
of work flexibility in 2020 (Thomas et al., 2020). Flexible work arrangements are another area
where mentor- and sponsorship programs can support women by assigning challenging projects,
continuing access to decision-makers, and remaining focused on pathways to advancement
(Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021; Krivkovich et al., 2016). Offering flexible work arrangements
is not the only step as organizations should normalize leveraging this culture specifically through
33

leadership modeling the behavior. Additionally, resetting goals and deadlines, project scope, and
expectations can support sustainability (Thomas et al., 2020).
Further, banks can support women by offering solutions to childcare needs (Bankole &
Adeyeri, 2014; Thomas et al., 2020). Banks could ensure women’s working assignments are
closer to their homes offering better access to childcare and less commute time for working
mothers (Bankole & Adeyeri, 2014). Further, banks could offer access to more affordable
childcare solutions (Bankole & Adeyeri, 2014; Noland et al., 2016). Employer-sponsored
daycare centers or agreements with nearby providers offer additional benefits and support to
women.
Progress in women’s ascension to top executive roles lies in recognizing the barriers as
structural and organizational then developing cultures to manage them (Kanter, 1987). Banks
play a crucial role in developing family-friendly cultures with the services they provide
consumers (Uddin et al., 2020). For women employees, bank cultures can be rich in formal and
informal mechanisms that encourage a balance between work and home (Uddin et al., 2020).
Banks should evolve workplace cultures with care and understanding that demonstrate
appreciation and recognition for women’s unique roles. To make this shift, organizations must
remove ambiguity from decision-making processes, expand the definition of success, and
intentionally disassociate the culture with masculinity (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021; Correll,
2017).
Small Wins Approach
The “small wins” approach leverages incremental changes that dismantle the biases
deeply embedded in organizational and structural systems and could inform long-term change
(Correll, 2017; Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). To determine the specific barrier or problem within
34

an organization requires leaders to probe beliefs, policies, and practices. The employee’s voice
can also be instrumental in uncovering the practices and beliefs the bank’s culture is fostering
(Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). A thorough analysis should also include all existing and collected
data regarding hiring, promotion, and performance evaluation processes to determine if, where,
and how gender biases enter (Correll, 2017). Recognizing and addressing gender bias in how the
talent pool is fed and maintained has resulted in more gender-diverse recruiting and hiring
practices and improved promotion rates of women (Correll, 2017).
Collaboration between managers and internal change agents in the organization can result
in tools and processes to reduce the identified biases (Correll, 2017; Meyerson & Fletcher,
2000). Manager teams should limit the number and scope of initiatives to keep them strategically
targeted since data may reveal multiple opportunities for improvement (Meyerson & Fletcher,
2000). While change may occur with one initiative, banks should not regard it as a “one and
done” solution (Correll, 2017; Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000).
To support the longer-term change, banks should also rely on the management teams to
develop new tools and processes (Correll, 2017). These small groups can increase peer
accountability and reduce resistance among peers (Correll, 2017). The new tools and processes
become the intervention for change that include goals and measures of small wins and long-term
change (Correll, 2017).
A critical area is developing performance assessments (PAs) that reduce ambiguity and
are developed with clear, bias-free criteria (Correll, 2017). PA development begins by evaluating
the organization’s potentially narrow definition of success, then applying updated success criteria
equally to men and women. The purpose is to reduce decision-making driven by stereotypes and
bias (Correll, 2017). In Correll’s (2017) case study group,managers shared that the process
35

supported fairness and consistency in evaluating their teams by reducing the gender gaps
uncovered in prior employee ratings (Correll, 2017).
Theoretical Application
Bronfenbrenner ’s Ecological Model
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (1979) provided the framework for this study and
informed the concepts which were revealed through literature review. These concepts informed
the research questions and the survey questions for this study. Bronfenbrenner’s model was
utilized to examine development of the person (women) within the environment (the banking
industry) and their perceptions of environmental factors affecting their career advancement.
Bronfenbrenner’s model considers the interconnectedness between the microsystem
(immediate setting which includes the woman) and the nested, surrounding systems to include
mesosystem (relationship between systems), exosystem (events in settings where the woman is
not present), and macrosystem (social ideologies and values of cultures and subcultures).
Bronfenbrenner’s model was used in the following discussion of prevalent concepts that emerged
in the literature review and informed the study framework.
Legislative Interventions
Chapter Two began by establishing a brief history of women entering the U.S. workforce.
In reviewing literature to set this foundation, I found several references to legislation that
informed and framed the evolution of women in the workplace. Legislative interventions align
with the exosystem of the Bronfenbrenner model. From these articles and previous research
emerged the concept of legislative interventions, specifically Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act
of 2010 which impacted the banking industry environment (exosystem). Sect.342 established the
requirement for all federal financial agencies, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
36

(FDIC) which regulates the banking industry, to create an OMWI, to establish standards and
expectations, and to assess banks’ diversity policies and progress (SEC, n.d.; Fullerton &
Kaufman, 2014). The previously shared impact of the increased percentage of women serving on
BoDs and the decreased incidence of bank BoDs with no women made me expect positive
results with study participant data.
Though the banking industry is subject to regulatory compliance, legislative interventions
were not directly addressed in survey questions. I did not include questions specific to Section
342 of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 since it would have proven difficult to ascertain participants’
understanding of the legislation without potentially biasing their responses in an online survey. I
assumed that participants’ organizations were compliant with the regulatory requirements to
adopt diversity policies that positively impact women’s advancement to top executive/c-suite
roles.
Gender Bias and Sidelining
Additionally, I noted gender discrimination concepts that included gender bias and
gender sidelining. For the purposes of this study, gender bias was defined as the prejudices and
discrimination based on the gender of a person (Correll, 2017). Gender sidelining was defined as
a form of bias that minimizes women’s contributions and achievements in the workplace (Fink,
2018). I included gender bias and sideling concepts under gender discrimination in the
mesosystem of women in the banking industry. I made this decision based on Fink’s (2018)
reference to unactionable discrimination that falls outside the narrow definition of Title VII and
my experience in the industry. While gender sidelining experiences do not meet legal action
requirements, Fink (2018) posited that the accumulation of these experiences influence women’s
career intentions, engagement, and career satisfaction. Gender discrimination concepts informed
37

me in creating survey questions that asked participants to rate as well as to identify additional
factors that inhibit women’s advancement to top executive/c-suite roles in the banking industry.
Balance of Career and Home Life
Other concepts from the literature included traditional views of gender roles and the
challenge to balance career with responsibilities at home. These concepts are associated with the
woman’s macrosystem, or the cultural customs and values, and includes overarching
characteristics from the other systems in Bronfenbrenner’s model (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008).
The macrosystem focuses on consistencies and similarities across settings within a society
(Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008). In terms of this study, the similarities in the perception of
women’s roles across the macrocosm of American society and the microcosm of the banking
industry. Women are expected to be warmer and less direct communicators and this
communication style results in doubts about women’s leadership abilities (Johns, 2013;
Krivkovich et al., 2016). However, women are less likely to receive feedback to improve their
opportunities for advancement though they are more likely than men to ask for it (Krivkovich et
al., 2016). Women’s assertiveness is viewed as aggressive and often results in them lacking
influence in the workplace as they are deemed unlikeable (Johns, 2013; Krivkovich et al., 2016).
There are different societal expectations for women regarding their roles at work and
home (Mitchell, 2020). While work-life balance may vary with emphasis on one aspect or the
other, women are expected to assume the burden of balancing both and places them at a career
advancement disadvantage (Bankole & Adeyeri, 2014; Cimirotić et al., 2017; Fang et al., 2018;
Johns, 2013; Noland et al., 2016). Men, however, demonstrate acceptance of women’s career
advancement as nearly half surveyed express that a 10% representation of women in senior
leadership is acceptable (Krivkovich et al., 2016).
38

Conceptual Framework
Using Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory and ecological model, Figure 1 depicts a
conceptual model of the relationship between women in the banking industry, and the factors
within their micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems that facilitate or inhibit their advancement to
top executive/c-suite roles. This depiction demonstrates the layers of interconnectedness and
influence on women in the banking industry.

Figure 1
Women in the Banking Industry Conceptual Framework

39

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine women’s perspectives of the barriers that
prevent their ascension to top executive roles in the banking industry. Chapter Three provides a
detailed overview of the methodology and its various components that were used in this study.
Included in this chapter is an examination of my positionality. This chapter also includes an
examination of how validity and reliability were addressed in this study and ethical
considerations I made. Finally, the chapter concludes with a review of the potential limitations
and delimitations of this study.
Research Questions
This study examined women’s perceptions of the barriers to their ascension to top
executive roles (CEO/CFO/COO) in the banking industry, as well as their perceptions of social
and organizational support that may exist. The following research questions (RQ) were
considered in this study:
RQ 1: What are the long-term goals of women in the banking industry?
RQ 2a: What are the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding the factors
that inhibit women’s ascent to top executive/c-suite roles?
RQ 2b: What are the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding the factors
that facilitate women’s ascent to top executive/c-suite roles?
RQ 3: What are the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding the strategies
that are being used to promote women to top executive/c-suite roles?
Overview of Design
A mixed-methods survey design was used for this study. A survey was appropriate for
this study as it allowed me to efficiently gather data about a large group, women in the banking
40

industry. A mixed-methods survey design allowed me to gather quantitative and qualitative data
in a single-phase project to meet dissertation completion expectations.
Research Setting
This study was conducted as a survey shared among women in the banking industry from
my professional LinkedIn network. I further requested my contacts to share with their networks
of women in the banking industry. This method of network or snowball purposeful sampling is
considered typical by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). This survey was completed online to pursue a
large sample of women from the banking industry. The participants for this study self-identified
as women with a minimum of 3 years employment in the banking industry. The survey was open
to women of all job roles and levels in the banking industry. This participant group was a
purposeful selection of those most affected by the problem of practice and who were most likely
to accomplish the study’s goals (Maxwell, 2013).
The Researcher
A critical or transformative philosophical worldview frames the problem of practice and
the purpose of this study. Transformative worldview focuses on the needs and experiences of
marginalized or disenfranchised groups to provide a better understanding of participants and
changes needed to affect their lived experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Transformative
research examines the problem of practice through a critical lens, examining power and social
justice, discrimination, and oppression to better understand participants’ experiences (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Further, research through the lens of a transformative worldview includes
recommendations or action agendas for reform that are informed by participants’ societal,
workplace, and life experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
41

Assumptions of the transformative worldview in this study included women being
marginalized and disenfranchised despite comprising much of the workforce in the banking
industry (Catalyst, 2020; Haslett & Dholakia, 2018). I assumed participants would describe their
perceptions related to being a woman working in the banking and the factors that facilitate or
inhibit their ascension to top executive/c-suite roles. Further, the data collected through survey
questions informed me of additional barriers and solutions to women’s ascension to top
executive roles that were not expected. These items are covered in Chapter Four of this study.
I am a White, cisgender, heterosexual woman who works in the financial services
industry. I specifically worked in the banking industry from 2005 until 2017. The catalyst for
leaving the banking industry was my personal experience with limitations and barriers to
advancement beyond branch leadership roles.
My experience as a woman in the banking industry informed my feelings about barriers
to ascension to top executive/c-suite roles and potentially biased my approach to the study and its
results. Reflexivity was critical to mitigating the risk of personal bias. Creswell and Creswell
(2018) determined that sufficient reflexivity by the researcher occurs by taking notes during the
research process, reflecting on the researcher’s own experiences, and considering the effect these
personal experiences may have to shape data interpretation. The additional steps I took regarding
validity, reliability, and ethics to mitigate the risk of bias are discussed later in this chapter.
Data Sources
Data for this study was collected from women working in the banking industry through a
mixed-methods survey. I created the survey using Qualtrics  and made it available for 3 weeks.
Further description of the participants, instrumentation, and data collection follow.
42

Participants
The participants in this study were women in the banking industry. The survey
introduction stated that continuing meant the participant self-identified as a woman, had worked
in the banking industry for a minimum of 3 years, and were employed with a U.S.-based bank
not a third-party or temporary employment agency.
To recruit participants, I posted the survey invitation on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter
and requested contacts in my network to also post the survey. According to statistics released by
IBISWorld.com (2021), there are currently 1,839,897 employees in the U.S. banking industry.
Given that women hold 54.3% of the banking industry’s roles (Catalyst, 2020), there are
approximately 999,064 women in the industry. I leveraged my 1,600 social media contacts to
source 66 total participants.
Instrumentation
The 15-question survey instrument that was used in this study was created by me with
some contents informed from instruments used in prior research and online resources. Questions
were formatted with multiple-choice answers, slide ratings, and essay text boxes for data
collection. I also included questions that allowed participants to consider several factors
impacting women’s career advancement. For example, one question asked participants to use a
slide rating to determine to what extent 21 separate factors inhibited women’s advancement to
top executive/c-suite roles. Another question presented five different policies aimed at gender
diversity and participants were asked to determine if their organization had or had not adopted
each policy.
The survey was informed by questions in dissertations that explored women's career
barriers in senior executive service (SES) roles in the federal government (Dickerson, 2010;
43

Taylor, 2004). Each of the previous dissertation studies showed consistent responses among
women regarding the factors that inhibit or facilitate their advancement to senior executive roles
in SES. I crafted the questions to include language aligned with the banking industry.
I also created additional qualitative questions aimed to gather additional data. Participants
used these questions to provide their different perspectives and lived experiences. The 15-
question survey is included in the Appendix.
Data Collection Procedures
The survey was available for 3 weeks my goal being 50 or more participants. The 15-
question survey was administered in March of 2022. Participants’ career reflection may have
revealed barriers to and identified the needed programs for their advancement. This researcher
expected this heightened state of awareness might influence participation. I did not offer paid
incentives for completion due to the potential population size of eligible participants. I was
confident that women in the banking industry understood and supported the study topic based on
interactions within my professional network.
The 15-question survey was shared in posts on my LinkedIn and Twitter social media
pages. I also asked my professional connections to share the survey link with their networks of
women in the banking industry. Following Robinson and Firth Leonard’s (2019)
recommendations, the survey design included social media friendly formatting which allowed
participants access on laptops, desktops, or mobile devices.
The survey included instructions for completion and confirmation that survey responses
were anonymous and confidential (Pazzaglia et al., 2016; Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
Survey instructions help participants more accurately complete questions providing more reliable
information (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Based on a beta test of the survey, I estimated
44

that participants would complete the survey within 10 minutes. However, outside the survey
availability time, participants’ completion time was not limited.
Data Analysis
I used statistical analysis tools in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel to analyze closed-ended
survey questions. The data from some of these questions are shared using graphical
representations. Responses to the 21 factors participants rated using the sliding-scale were also
analyzed in Qualtrics with mean responses for each factor shared in a table.
Open-ended question analysis was completed using a priori and open coding strategies. I
entered responses to each open-ended question to an Excel spreadsheet. Keywords based on the
question verbiage were identified. Other concepts and perspectives shared in participants’
responses were identified. I identified themes and tracked them to create tables shared in chapter
four.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are essential to establish the credibility of any research survey
(Salkind, 2014). Validity is supported when survey questions operationalize what is being
measured from the RQs. Validity pertains to answering whether survey questions measure what
they are intended to measure (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
Content validity of this study’s survey was achieved by comparing data to similar surveys from
research in other industries. This included confirmation whether questions address barriers to the
top executive roles that women in the banking industry experience. Using a mixed-method
survey question design to gather quantitative and qualitative data allowed me to garner insights
on previously identified barriers and emerging ones.
45

The reliability of a survey is supported if questions replicate the same types of
information with each administration (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Survey questions in this
study were designed to examine women’s career barriers. Though adapted to language for the
banking industry, the essence of the questions remained consistent with other survey
applications. Additionally, Pazzaglia et al. (2016) recommended recruiting strategies that include
endorsements from those respected by the population. I asked my network contacts to share and
endorse the study when reposting to their social media pages.
Ethics
Ethical considerations when conducting research must be addressed (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Critical and transformative worldviews bring ethics to the forefront due to qualitative
research’s highly collaborative, participatory, and political nature (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Further, anticipated ethical issues must be addressed when making study proposals and
defending the validity and credibility of said study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Researchers’
ethical concerns must be addressed before conducting the study in design, data collection and
analysis, and when sharing or reporting study data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Though I hold no position of power over participants, personal relationships may have
influenced the participant to adjust their answers to reflect perceptions of my experience,
feelings, or biases. Therefore, participant recruitment beyond my network helped to address
concerns. As recommended by Creswell and Creswell (2018), consistent reflexivity by the
researcher throughout the study allayed validity and ethics concerns by recognizing and
addressing the potential effects of the researcher’s biases to shape data.
Informed consent process and document as outlined by the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) was engaged in administering the survey.
46

Creswell and Creswell (2018) offered tips that coincide with the IRB, such as equal treatment of
participants, avoiding deceptive behaviors, and avoiding harmful data collection that
compromises participants. Participants were advised that participation in the study was
voluntary, and all data was submitted anonymously. Data collection was completed using the
Qualtrics platform. Only the dissertation chair and I had access to raw data. Data coding also
protected participants by categorizing and grouping data headings that allowed for quantitative
analysis and reporting (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Reporting and sharing of data occurred in
my dissertation and at the direction of the dissertation chair.

47

Chapter Four: Findings
This study aimed to ascertain the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding
the environmental factors that facilitate and the barriers that inhibit their ascent to top executive
roles (CEO, CFO, and COO). Further, this study sought to understand women’s perceptions of
the strategies currently used to promote women to top executive roles. Finally, this study aimed
to ascertain the long-term goals of women in the banking industry.
I employed a mixed-methods survey design to gather data from the sample group. The
mixed-methods survey design allowed me to gather quantitative data using questions informed
by previous research findings. Further, the survey included open-ended questions to gather
participants’ perceptions, experiences, and recommendations about the environmental factors
that facilitate and inhibit their ascension to top executive roles. The following RQs were
proposed to inform the survey and guide the study:
RQ 1. What are the long-term goals of women in the banking industry?
RQ 2a. What are the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding the factors
that inhibit women’s ascent to top executive/c-suite roles?
RQ 2b. What are the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding the factors
that facilitate women’s ascent to top executive/c-suite roles?
RQ 3. What are the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding the strategies
that are being used to promote women to top executive/c-suite roles?
The findings included in Chapter Four are substantiated by the data collected and
analyzed from 66 participants in the anonymous online survey. Participants had the option to
skip individual questions as none of the survey questions were required. Some survey questions
appeared based on the participant’s responses to previous questions.
48

Participants
Participant criteria included individuals who self-identified as women, had worked in the
banking industry for at least 3 years and were currently employed with a U.S.-based bank, not a
third-party or temporary employment agency. No further demographic data was required to
screen participants. However, to better understand professional details about the participants and
their respective organizations, I asked questions regarding their current role and the number of c-
suite positions currently held by women in their organization.
Participants were asked about the gender diversity among their organizations’ c-suite and
presented with seven potential c-suite roles. I chose the c-suite roles by reviewing c-
suite/executive board lists on the FDIC’s website. I also included “none of the above” as a
potential answer. There were 72 total selections indicating that women hold these roles in the
participants’ organizations. “None of the above” was not selected.
The study focused on the top executive roles, CFO, COO, and CEO. Of the participants’
selections, CFO comprised 8.33%, COO 6.94%, and CEO 4.17%. Chief human resources officer
(CHRO) was selected most at 44.44% followed by Chief marketing officer (CMO) at 23.61%. .
Chief compliance officer (CCO) comprised 9.72% of participants’ selections. Chief risk officer
was least chosen comprising 2.78% of participants’ selections. Table 1 indicates the percentage
of participants’ selections in descending order.

49

Table 1
Participants’ Selections of C-Suite Roles in Their Organizations Held by Women
Which of the following roles in your organization are currently filled by
women? (check all that apply)
% responses
Chief human resources officer (CHRO) 44.44%
Chief marketing officer (CMO) 23.61%
Chief compliance officer (CCO) 9.72%
Chief financial officer (CFO) 8.33%
Chief operating officer (COO) 6.94%
Chief executive officer (CEO) 4.17%
Chief risk officer (CRO) 2.78%

Respondents shared that most of the top executive/c-suite roles held by women in their
organizations are in roles such as human resources and marketing. The roles primary to this
study, CEO/CFO/COO, were 19% of the total selections. Collectively and individually,
CEO/CFO/COO were nearly three to six times less likely to be held by women than the top two
responses, CHRO and CMO. It is important to note that while the percentage of responses for
CEO roles held by women aligned with industry data previously cited (approximately 4%),
reflects the percentage of total participants’ responses. Because participants did not disclose the
name of their organization, we were uncertain if the respondents who selected CEO, CFO, and/or
COO as a position held by a woman worked for the same organization.
Participants were then asked if they held a top executive/c-suite role in their respective
organization and to describe their role. Of the respondents, 93.18% were not in a top executive/c-
suite role in their organization. Respondents tended to list their job titles when providing a
description of their role. I coded roles to one of six categories: individual contributor/sales,
regional/middle market manager, officer (ex. vice-president) or senior leader below the c-suite,
50

branch or financial center or team manager, support roles such as operations, marketing, or
analysts, and c-suite or executive or board of directors’ roles. Table 2 includes, in descending
order, the categories I identified and the percentage of responses to each.

Table 2
Survey Participants’ Current Roles in Their Organization
How would you describe your current role in your organization? % responses
Individual contributor (such as sales, loan originator, account/relationship
manager)
31.82%
Regional/middle market manager 25.00%
Officer/Sr leader (below C-suite) 18.18%
Branch/financial center/team manager 11.36%
C-Suite/executive board/board of directors 6.82%
Operations department/marketing department/support roles (such as business
or data analyst)
6.82%

51

Individual contributor/sales roles were the largest group of the participants at 31.82%.
These roles do not have formal leadership or managerial responsibilities and are typically
customer-facing roles in the banking industry. Twenty-five percent of respondents self-described
their role as regional/middle market managers. Regional/middle market manager roles in the
banking industry tend to include leadership of several smaller teams within a geographic region
where direct reports include branch, financial center, or team managers. Approximately eighteen
percent of respondents described their role as officers (ex. vice-president) or senior leaders below
the c-suite. In the banking industry, these roles include division leaders with several
regional/middle market managers as direct reports. Of the respondents, 11.36% self-described
their role as a branch, financial center, or team manager leading a group of an unspecified size in
day-to-day customer-facing interactions. Just under seven percent of respondents self-described
their roles as c-suite or executive or board of directors. Of these respondents, one listed her role
as CCO, which was also a selection in the survey question asking participants to identify c-suite
roles held by women in their organizations. Finally, 6.82% of respondents self-described their
position as support roles such as operations, marketing, or analysts. In the banking industry,
these roles have impact on customer experience but are not customer-facing. The primary
customer for these roles is the retail banking teams that they support at all levels of the
organization.
The survey results infer that approximately 61% of respondents were in a leader/manager
role. Fifty percent of those respondents held second level or higher leader/manager roles.
Previous research discusses women’s experience with the “broken rung” in the ladder to
advancement whereby women do not ascend above the first level of leadership (Thomas et al.,
2021). I did not expect the number of leader/manager roles above first level managers
52

(branch/financial center/team) would contradict the “broken rung.” Research question one
explored participants’ long-term career goals. The following section includes the results from the
survey pertaining to research question one.
Research Question 1: What Are the Long-Term Career Goals of Women in the Banking
Industry?
Regarding this research question, were asked about their interest in serving in top
executive/c-suite roles. The survey revealed some contradictions between their interest in serving
versus if they had ever imagined themselves in these roles. When asked, 63% of participants
indicated they were not interested in serving in top executive/c-suite roles in their organization.
Further, a combined total of over 71% of participants indicated that they were either not
interested (38.10%) or unsure about (33.33%) serving in top executive/c-suite roles in another
organization. However, 60% of participants had imagined themselves in such a role. Those who
had not imagined themselves in these roles were asked to share why.
Interest in Top Executive/C-Suite Roles
Participants were asked if they had interest in serving in top executive/c-suite roles in
their or another organization. Overall, participants were not interested in serving in top
leadership roles in their own or another organization. As seen in Figure 2 below, sixty-three
percent indicated that they were not interested in serving in a top executive/c-suite role in their
current organization. 37% of respondents affirmed that they were interested.

53

Figure 2
Participants’ Interest in Serving in a Top Executive/C-Suite Role in Their Current Organization

When asked if they were interested in serving in top executive/c-suite roles in another
organization, 38% indicated they were not interested and 29% indicated they were interested.
However, 33% of respondents answered I don’t know when asked about their interest in serving
in a top executive/c-suite role in another organization.
Participants were then asked if they had ever imagined themselves in a top executive/c-
suite role. Despite 63.33% of respondents indicating they had no interest in serving in the c-suite
of their current organization, nearly as many, 60.00%, selected yes indicating they had imagined
themselves in these roles. Future research should explore the contradiction this study’s findings
54

indicate between women’s interest in serving in their organization’s c-suite and their having
imagined themselves in such roles.
Forty percent of respondents indicated they had not imagined themselves in top
executive/c-suite roles. When asked why they felt this way, thirty-eight percent indicated they
prefer a role without the responsibility and demands of a top executive leadership role.
Participants shared sentiments such as, “I like working as a connection point between executive
level and client facing employees,” “It is a lot more responsibility than I desire to have,” and “I
like being responsible only for myself and not anyone else.”
Regarding participants’ long-term career goals, approximately 23% of respondents
expressed that their work/life balance, personal wellbeing, or retirement plans were more
important than ascending to top executive/c-suite roles. Respondents shared that they “want to
have time and energy to focus on my family, interests outside of work,” and “having a work/life
balance is more important than any money that can be made.” One respondent expanded on her
decision not to pursue top executive roles based on her past leadership experience. “I have sat in
a management role in the past and it tends to be male dominated, with too much pressure/stress
and have decided not to pursue for my personal wellbeing.”
Another 23% of respondents expressed that they do not have women role models in top
executive/c-suite leadership. One respondent added that “opportunity, development, and support
for women leaders to advance continues to decrease as they move up the corporate ladder.” This
respondent further expressed the lack of women role models, “the barrier between men and
women serving in executive level positions is vastly different. Within the four financial
industries I have worked for, the majority of these positions have been held by men.” Another
55

participant responded, “there were never women in these roles as I was climbing the ladder, so I
had no examples of women in these roles.” Another participant shared:
I never saw women in these roles growing up, it was always a man. I didn’t know it was a
possibility. I wasn’t told or encouraged to be in that role. I also wasn’t told I couldn’t, but
I feel like it was implied or understood.
The final two categories regarding participants’ long-term career goals included,
respectively, 7.69% of respondents. The previously mentioned “broken rung” was alluded to
when one respondent indicated that “the opportunity, development, and support for women
leaders to advance continues to decrease as they move (slightly) higher up the corporate ladder.”
Finally, the opportunity to be CEO of a self-owned small business was shared as a reason to
pursue a top executive/c-suite role.

Table 3
Women’s Perspectives on Why They Do Not Imagine Themselves in Top Executive/C-Suite Roles
Why do you feel this way? %responses
I prefer a role such as an individual contributor or non-executive
manager to the responsibility and demands of a top executive
leadership role.
38.46%
I do/did not have women role models in executive and c-suite
leadership.
23.00%
My work/life balance, personal wellbeing, or retirement plans are more
important to me.
23.00%
Women’s opportunity, development, and support to advance decrease as
they move higher up the corporate ladder.
7.69%
I would consider a CEO/executive role only in my own small business. 7.69%

56

Next, participants were asked to describe their long-term career goals. The survey
responses were analyzed, and four themes were identified: non-executive leadership, top
executive/c-suite roles, non-leadership roles, and other long-term career goals.
Long-Term Career Goals
When describing long-term career goals, 28.13% of participants indicated a desire to
advance to first- and second-level manager/leader roles. An equal percentage of responses,
21.87%, indicated their long-term career goals included either the c-suite or a non-leadership
role. The next group, 15.63%, did not specify a future role though their long-term goals included
performance recognition and growth opportunities. Finally, 3.13% indicated they were
considering careers outside of the banking industry with three times that number, 9.37%, who
indicated their long-term career goals were unknown. The themes and the respective response
percentages are included in Table 4. The following discussion analyzes the findings of the four
themes identified: non-executive leadership, top executive/c-suite roles, non-leadership roles,
and other long-term career goals.

57

Table 4
Participants’ Description of Their Long-Term Career Goals
How would you describe your long-term career goals? %responses
I desire to advance to a management/leadership role at the
team/regional/department levels
28.13%
I desire to be in, or I am open to a top executive or c-suite role 21.87%
I desire to remain in a non-leadership role allowing for greater flexibility and
income potential with less stress
21.87%
Though a role is not specified, I strive to be recognized as a high performer
and provided with continued growth opportunities
15.63%
I am undecided, or my long-term career goals are unknown at this time 9.37%
I am seeking or considering careers outside of the banking industry 3.13%

Non-Executive Leadership
Of the respondents, 28.13% indicated a desire to advance to a non-executive leadership
role. Responses indicated long-term career goals to attain first- or second-level
management/leadership role at the team, regional, or department levels. Despite indicating
openness to serving in top executive/c-suite roles in other organizations, respondents did not
share specificity when describing long-term career goals that included non-executive leadership.
None of the respondents indicated a desire to step down from a top executive/c-suite or more
senior leadership role to a non-executive leadership role.
Participants shared their desires “to continue to manage and lead the region in growth.”
Another added, “I see myself in a leadership position, building up and developing my team.”
Another respondent shared they desire a “leadership role making an impact on the team and my
clients both personally and professionally.” One participant shared, “I would like to be in a
58

leader position to champion change, motivate people, and lead with agility. I would like to be in
a position to advocate for people within my organization and for our clients.”
Finally, one respondent offered:
I wish this was an easy question to answer. The mortgage/banking industry continues to
change, and those changes play a factor in future planning. I have always seen myself in a
leadership role, although it has been nice to take a break from that these last couple of
years. You don’t have to have a leadership role to be a leader in this industry. Any role
where I can be an agent of change and help others grow and succeed is fulfilling.
This respondent seemed to vacillate between the role she has imagined and broadening the
definition of leadership to behavior beyond title. This may be another example of cognitive
dissonance if the participant imagines herself in a leadership role but chooses to remain in an
organization where she does not pursue that aspiration. Cognitive dissonance has also been
labeled as self-justification theory to explain the escalation of commitment when a person is
presented negative information related to her choices (Hinojosa, et al., 2017; Sleesman et al.,
2012). In the respondent’s situation, the role in which she imagines serving is not her current role
and she may be justifying her choice to remain in the organization or the industry.
Top Executive/C-suite Roles
Of the respondents, 21.87% shared a desire to be in or were open to top executive/c-suite
roles as a part of their long-term career goals. A few participants spoke in general terms sharing a
desire to “be in an executive role to have a seat at the table and be able to pay it forward
mentoring others looking to move into leadership positions.” Another shared a desire “to help
run an organization that helps better my family, life, and organizational growth.” One participant
expressed being “open to more professional growth and the possibility of a c-suite opportunity.”
59

Other participants were more specific with their aspirations to reach top executive/c-suite roles.
“My goal is to obtain a chief strategy or operating officer role in the next year and a corporate
board role in the next 5 years.” A few with specific c-suite aspirations included diversity, equity,
and inclusion (DE&I) elements. “To lead an organization, either as CFO or CEO. To bring
empathy and foster diversity, equity, and inclusion so that the top talent is always at the top.” “I
would like to serve in the c-suite capacity with a company that welcomes women in leadership
and diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Finally, one respondent summarized that her long-term
career goals were to reach “the very top.”
Non-Leadership Roles
Another 21.87% of respondents, indicated a desire to remain in a non-leadership role
allowing for greater flexibility and income potential with less stress. Flexibility and work/life
balance were common subthemes among respondents choosing non-leadership career goals. One
participant shared, “I know I have the skills to do larger roles and keep climbing (and have been
offered) but I have achieved a certain work-life balance that makes me very happy. That is a
priority for me now.” Another shared, “I wish to stay in a position with flexibility, less stress,
and maintain a contributor position.” Finally, another shared:
There was a time when I was a SVP of Operations and had four departments reporting to
me. … Seven years ago, I moved to an Account Manager position allowing me a high
contribution to the growth of the company with considerably less political produced
stress and far less minutia. Bottom line more income, less stress, and a greater
contribution.
60

Other Long-Term Career Goals
The final group of participants described their long-term career goals as roles that aligned
with diversity and inclusion, unspecified future roles, and undecided or unknown career goals.
These participants accounted for approximately 28% of the responses.
Participants whose long-term career goals included diversity and inclusion shared various
sentiments about their future roles. Among them were to “make a measurable, lasting
contribution to creating a more equitable and inclusive workplace.” Other participants shared a
desire to work in an organization that aligned to their personal values and fulfill “a socially
responsible mission and vision.”
Of the study participants, 15.63% did not specify a future role. Rather, survey
respondents expressed that they strive to be recognized as high performers and provided with
ongoing growth opportunities. One respondent described her long-term career goals as “continue
to be a high performer in whatever role I have; seek purpose and meaning in my work at all
times.” Another respondent shared, “to do my best, be one of the top in my field and known in
the industry.” Another shared a desire for “continued growth, maybe through promotion, maybe
through additional customers or responsibilities while increasing my income.” Another
respondent shared, “I am ambitious! I want to go as far as I can before I kick the retirement
bucket!” Finally, one respondent connected community service to business initiatives when she
shared that her “long-term career goals include working within community and philanthropic
partnerships to drive strategic growth, brand recognition, and employee experience.”
The two final groups included respondents who have undecided or unknown career goals
or are seeking or considering careers outside the banking industry. One of the undecided
respondents shared, “I’ve met a number of my long-term goals though I do feel I have a number
61

of extended goals that I feel may be more personal than professional.” A respondent considering
careers outside of the banking industry indicated, “due to the nature of the business, I have
considered moving out of the banking industry into education.”
The respondent group with unspecified long-term career goals combined with those
respondents who were undecided or considered leaving the banking industry equals the
percentage of respondents in the largest group, 28.13%. Later survey questions asked
participants to rate and list additional factors that may influence their advancement. While the
need for clear career paths was discussed, several factors that support professional development
along the career path for promotion were similarly rated as influential.
Research Question 2A: What Are the Perceptions of Women in the Banking Industry
Regarding the Factors that Inhibit Women ’s Ascent to Top Executive Roles?
Participants were asked questions to rate the extent to which 21 factors inhibited their
ascent to top executive/c-suite roles in the banking industry on a 10-point scale (0 = not at all to
10 = a great deal). Seventeen of the 21 factors, or 81%, were rated at the midpoint (5.00) or
higher. One factor rated below 4.00. The two highest rated factors at 7.21 and 7.38 included
themes of men’s promotion and perceptions of women leaders despite women performing at
higher levels. These factors were informed by previous research, the literature review, and online
samples of gender discrimination surveys. Table 5 reflects the 21 factors presented to
participants and the mean score of each factor and the following section discusses the findings.

62

Table 5
Participants’ Perceptions of Factors That Inhibit the Advancement of Women to Top
Executive/C-Suite Roles
In your opinion, to what extent do the following factors limit the advancement
of women to top executive/c-suite leadership in the banking industry? (rate
from 0 to 10 with ‘0’ being “not at all” to ‘10’ being “a great deal”)
Mean
Men are promoted despite women performing at a higher level 7.38
Women are not perceived as leaders despite performing at a high level 7.21
Lack of mentoring 6.82
Discrimination based on a combination of gender, race, and/or sexual
orientation
6.79
Women are not promoted despite attaining higher educational degrees 6.76
Balancing work and home life 6.65
Discrimination based on race 6.43
Lack of role models 6.09
Discrimination based on gender 6.03
Lack of support at work with family responsibilities 6.03
Lack of networking 5.94
Motherhood or planning to be a mother is looked at as a hindrance to work
performance
5.79
Discrimination based on sexual orientation 5.70
Lack of childcare/dependent care/elderly parent care 5.64
Lack of opportunity for professional development 5.63
Lack of support at home with family responsibilities 5.42
Lack of direction to improve performance 5.11
Lack of performance feedback 4.82
Lack of opportunity for challenging work assignments 4.59
Lack of support to advance education 4.32
Discrimination based on marital status 3.16

63

Of the factors that inhibit women’s advancement, the mean, or average, varied from 3.16
to 7.38. The factor with the lowest rating was “discrimination based on marital status,” which
had a mean of 3.16 and was the only factor below 4.00. In fact, the next lowest score was over
one point higher at 4.32. The factor with the highest rating was “men are promoted despite
women performing at a higher level,” which had a mean of 7.38. Fifteen of the 21 factors
(71.43%) were rated between 5.00 and 6.99. Of the 21 factors, respondents rated the following in
the top five: “men are promoted despite women performing at a higher level,” “women are not
perceived as leaders despite performing at a higher level,” “lack of mentoring,” “discrimination
based on a combination of gender, race, and/or sexual orientation,” and “women are not
promoted despite attaining higher educational degrees.”
On a 0 to 10 scale, five would be the midpoint. Less than one-third were rated below the
midpoint. This group included environmental factors associated with work and home such as
lack of performance feedback, challenging work assignments, support to advance education, and
discrimination based on marital status. Other factors were at the top of the ratings, over 7.00, and
included themes around promotion and perception of women as leaders.
Participants were also asked to describe any additional factors not included on the survey
that limit women’s advancement to top executive/c-suite roles. Of the participant-identified
factors, nearly 80% of responses aligned with organizational or environmental factors. Eight
themes emerged from the responses: (a) women lack self-confidence, self-esteem, or drive
compared to men; (b) women are viewed as possessing an inappropriate presentation/leadership
style to be considered effective leaders; (c) the organization does not provide networking
opportunities with or sponsorship from influencers; (d) the organization has not developed career
paths and succession plans to support women; (e) there are not enough mentors willing to mentor
64

women; (f) there are few leadership/promotion opportunities in the banking industry, (g) there
are insufficient role models for women; and (h) organizations need a culture shift that reflects
DE&I to support women’s representation.
Three respondents provided individual perspectives outside the themes I identified. One
shared that the factors in survey question nine were thorough while another shared that her
organization “values and supports diversity and women.” However, one respondent offered a
differing perspective I did not expect when she shared:
Just want to note that I see discrimination both ways now. Being a White male or female
can be discriminated against to ensure other races are gaining roles sometimes not solely
based on qualifications but to address current expectations today.
Table 6 reflects the themes and percentage of respondents from highest to lowest.

65

Table 6
Participant-Identified Factors That Inhibit Women From Advancing to Top Executive/C-Suite
Roles
What other factors not listed above do you feel impact women advancing to
top executive/c-suite roles in the banking industry?
%responses
Women lack self-confidence, self-esteem, or drive compared to men 21.05%
Women are viewed as possessing an inappropriate presentation/leadership
style to be considered effective leaders
21.05%
The organization does not provide networking opportunities with or
sponsorship from influencers
15.79%
The organization has not developed career paths and succession plans to
support women advancing to top executive/c-suite roles
10.53%
There are not enough mentors willing to mentor women 10.53%
There are few leadership/promotion opportunities in the banking industry 10.53%
There are insufficient top executive/c-suite role models for women to
emulate
5.26%
There needs to be a culture shift that reflect DE&I for better representation
of women
5.26%

Self-Confidence, Self-Esteem, Drive, and Leadership Style
The theme, “I feel women lack self-confidence, self-esteem, or drive” had four
respondents. Respondents shared varying sentiments regarding this theme, from listing “self-
esteem, confidence, drive” and “lack of self-confidence” to more extensive details. One
respondent shared, “Many of the noted barriers above can be removed with self-determination,
self-promotion, and mentoring.” Another shared, “I think a lot of external factors are being
addressed. I think women now face a lot of their internal obstacles. I find women are under
confident for their abilities and men are overconfident. Men will strive or take promotions that
66

they are underqualified for and wing it where if women don’t feel overqualified, they won’t take
the position.”
Four respondents shared perspectives under the theme of women possessing an
inappropriate presentation/leadership style to be considered effective leaders, which impacts
their advancement to top executive/c-suite roles. One respondent expounded, “bias about what
makes a good leader. A bias towards the presentation style/leadership style of White men with
middle to upper class backgrounds.” Another shared, “good old boys White network continue to
be the rule.” Another respondent shared, “I think it is pretty simple. Men are promoted because
women’s work is not deemed as valuable and women are not promoted.” Finally, one respondent
offered her perception under this theme and offered a potential reason for the sentiment. This
respondent shared “the lack of honesty from those in the role and their perception of individuals
and inability to be open to the idea of a woman in that role. I think this is because women are
perceived as emotional leaders that is not entirely true.”
Environmental Factors
Regarding the factors that inhibit advancement, participants offered several
organizational factors including lack of networking opportunities, clear career paths and
planning, leadership and promotion opportunities, and the need for cultural shifts to support
women. Regarding networking, one participant shared “I feel the lack of networking
opportunities with or having sponsorship from influencers in the organization impacts women’s
advancement to top executive/c-suite roles.” Respondents expressed perspectives that included a
“lack of opportunities for business travel and shadowing needed to learn new skills.” Another
respondent shared that there exists “less exposure to board of directors.” One respondent
67

summarized, “I believe, like in most industries, it’s all about who you know and the relationships
you have built.”
Participants revealed they felt that “there are unclear career paths and succession plans to
support women,” “there are not enough mentors willing to mentor women,” and “there are few
leadership/promotion opportunities in the banking industry” as themes I identified. Regarding
unclear career paths and the lack of mentors, one respondent summarized there exists “a lack of
clear career pathing programs that have intentional and specific opportunities for women to
engage with executives (or those who know the role) in those roles and gain mentorship,
experience, and insight as to what is needed to perform the role successfully. There is also a lack
of those in the position being willing to mentor and provide a hand up in education and training.”
Concerning the theme “few leadership/promotion opportunities,” respondents shared
there are “limited opportunities for growth.” One further explained the limited leadership or
promotion opportunities are the result of “efficiency increases lead to fewer roles in lower-level
positions.” One respondent offered their insight that the issue may be more than the number of
opportunities and that “grass roots recruiting for entry-level roles for individuals to start and
advance in the industry is lacking.”
A final theme emerged concerning culture shifts that reflect DE&I that supports better
representation of women. In addressing the topic of representation, one respondent shared the
existence of “the lack of advocacy and awareness at the table where the decisions are made
largely due to a lack of representation.” Another respondent summarized, “inclusive culture is
critical to retaining and promoting diverse talent. We need to focus on shifting the culture at the
top in order to truly embrace and advance women as they arrive and settle in at the top.”
68

In summary, participants assigned above-midpoint ratings to 17 of the 21 factors that
inhibit women’s advancement presented to them. These 21 factors pertained to
organizational/environmental mechanisms. Further, participant-identified factors aligned with
eight themes, seven of which were organizational/environmental factors. Nearly 80% of
participants shared feedback that indicated the barriers that inhibit their advancement are
organizational/environmental related. It is also noteworthy that 50% of the responses to survey
questions asking participants for factors and recommendations to advance women to top
executive/c-suite roles included aspects of diversity, equity, inclusion, or bias training.
Research Question 2B: What Are the Perceptions of Women in the Banking Industry
Regarding the Factors That Facilitate Women ’s Ascent to Top Executive Roles
Participants were asked to indicate whether their organization had adopted the five
operating policies, which were informed by prior research, to foster the promotion of women to
top executive/c-suite roles. See the Appendix to review question number eleven. None of the
policies presented had implementation rates below 50% and none reached 100%. Unconscious
bias training held the highest adoption rate at 86.67% followed closely by policies regarding
equal access to opportunities at 82.14%. Inclusion of specific diversity training goals and
objectives in the bank’s annual plan and policies to facilitate women’s promotion to the c-suite
were selected 70.83% and 65.22%, respectively. The lowest adoption rate pertaining policies to
drive equal compensation was 56.52%. The following discusses the results of participant
insights. Table 7 shares the individual policies and percentage of respondents answering “yes” to
their organization’s adoption of the policy.

69

Table 7
Participants’ Perception of Implemented Operating Policies to Foster the Promotion of Women
to Top Executive/C-Suite Roles
Has your company implemented the following operating policies to foster
the promotion of women to top executive roles (CEO, CFO, COO)?

Percentage of
yes responses
Unconscious-bias training for leaders and/or the entire organization 86.67%
Established specific policies mandating that all qualified individuals have
equal access and opportunity to compete based on ability and merit
82.14%
Inclusion of specific diversity training goals and objectives in annual plans
that facilitate the promotion of women to top executive roles
70.83%
Inclusion of policies that facilitate the promotion of women to top executive
roles
65.22%
Creation of a gender-equity policy in respect to equal compensation 56.52%

The results seem to indicate that the respondents’ respective organizations have engaged
several factors that support DE&I, as well as unconscious-bias training. Of the five factors,
“unconscious-bias training for leaders and/or the entire organization,” had the highest percentage
of respondents answering in the affirmative. Of the respondents, 86.67% answered yes that their
organization had implemented unconscious-bias training for leaders and/or the entire
organization. The next highest rated factor, “established specific policies mandating that all
qualified individuals have equal access and opportunity to compete based on ability and merit”
revealed 82.l4% of respondents answered yes that their organization had implemented such
policies.
The third-highest number of respondents selected the factor ‘inclusion of specific
diversity training goals and objectives in annual plans that facilitate the promotion of women to
top executive roles.’ Of the respondents, 70.83% responded yes that their organization included
70

specific training goals and objectives in its annual plan. The next highest rated factor, was the
“inclusion of policies that facilitate the promotion of women to top executive roles.” Of the
respondents, 65.22% answered yes that their organizations had included such policies. The final
factor referred to compensation.
I included a survey question specific to equal compensation. Survey Question 15 asked
participants to rate the extent to which they agreed with the statement, “I feel I earn a salary
equivalent to or more than my male peers” on a four-point scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree,
strongly disagree) with a don’t know option. 50% of respondents indicated they either strongly
agreed or agreed (12% strongly agreed; 38% agreed) that they earn a salary equivalent to their
male peers while 33% disagreed or strongly disagreed (18% strongly disagree and 15%
disagree). Eighteen percent indicated they did not know. The percentage of participants who
either strongly agreed or agreed aligns closely with participants’ indications (56.52%) that their
organizations had implemented gender-equity policies regarding equal compensation. According
to a Pew Research Center survey, insufficient pay tied at 63% of respondents with lack of
opportunities for advancement as the number one reason to leave the workforce (Parker &
Horowitz, 2022). Banks lose talent and production when women choose to leave the workforce
due to pay inequities. In further analyzing responses, those participants whose organizations have
implemented equal compensation policies also strongly agreed or agreed that they earn a salary
equivalent to or more than their male peers.
After responding to the five presented policies, survey participants were then asked to
share additional insights into factors their respective organization has implemented to foster the
promotion of women to top executive roles (CEO, CFO, COO). Of the respondents, several
shared that their organization has not implemented any other factors or is well-positioned to
71

foster the promotion of women to top executive/c-suite roles. One respondent expounded, “I am
confident that the leadership we have in our company considers the promotion of anybody to an
executive role to be based on ability and not gender. I couldn’t imagine being put in a role just
because I am a woman and not because of my qualifications.”
Respondents shared six additional factors to foster the promotion of women to top
executive roles. Of the additional factors, several respondents shared that their organization has
implemented “mentoring opportunities,” “mentorship programming,” or “a women’s mentoring
program” to foster the promotion of women to top executive/c-suite roles. One participant shared
that their organization had “very supportive senior women.” Another added, “we had a female
CEO for many years.”
Respondents also shared additional perspectives in Survey Question 12. A subtheme may
be interpreted as changes to DE&I initiatives as factors to foster the promotion of women to top
executive/c-suite roles. One respondent shared their organization had implemented “diversity
and inclusion leadership and strategic planning.” Not all of the DE&I initiatives shared in survey
responses indicated success or support of the policies.
Possibly indicating incomplete DE&I initiatives, one respondent shared, “my
organization has all of these policies in place, but they are based on race and not gender.”
Another shared, “a lot of the management level programs at my company are not mandatory, nor
are the people managers held to a higher standard.” Respondents also offered insights into their
organization’s current state regarding implementation of DE&I initiatives. One respondent
shared, “it would appear we are currently more OWM (old white men) in leadership positions
than we were previously.” Another respondent shared, “there is a lot of ‘talk’ and policies are
72

written but goals and metrics are not set so behavior has not changed. There is still a strong bias
toward upper class White men.”
Respondents also shared other policies and programs their organization has adopted to
foster women’s promotion to top executive roles. The policies and programs included “employee
networks,” “childcare support,” and “advanced degree support.” Except for respondents who
called into question DE&I initiatives, none of the respondents spoke negatively about the
policies or programs in their organizations. Respondents’ answers to these survey questions were
echoed in the responses to questions regarding research question three.
Research Question Three: What Are the Perceptions of Women in the Banking Industry
Regarding the Strategies That Are Being Used To Promote Women to Top Executive Roles?
Participants were asked their perceptions of the strategies their respective organizations
are using to increase gender diversity in top executive roles. Participants were also asked what
recommendations they had for their organizations to achieve greater gender diversity these roles.
I was surprised by the answers to both survey questions in this section. Participants were asked if
they felt their organization should do less, is doing enough, or should do more to increase gender
diversity in top executive roles. Participants were split with 50% each selecting their
organization is doing enough or should do more. None of the participants responded that their
organization should do less.
Participant Recommendations
Participants were then asked what recommendations they had for their respective
organizations to increase gender diversity in top executive/c-suite roles. Changes to recruiting
and hiring practices was most often shared in 40% of the responses. Diversity expectations that
are clear and measurable was shared in 33.33% of responses, continuing the subtheme of DE&I
73

among participants’ answers. Career paths and programs for development of internal talent that
are clearly defined garnered over one-fourth of the responses. Mentoring, networking, and DE&I
and bias training programs were mentioned by participants 13.33%, respectively. Seven
categories or themes were derived from responses. Table 8 provides the themes and percentage
of respondents selecting each. Some respondents offered recommendations under more than one
of these categories.

Table 8
Participants’ Recommendations to Their Organizations To Increase Gender Diversity in Top
Executive/C-Suite Roles
What recommendations would you make to your organization to
increase gender diversity in top executive/c-suite roles?
% responses
Adjust recruiting and hiring practices. 40.00%
Establish clear and measurable diversity expectations. 33.33%
Develop clear career paths and programs to develop internal talent. 26.67%
Develop mentoring programs that also engage executives as mentors. 13.33%
Establish formal and women-led networking opportunities. 13.33%
Include more diversity, equity, inclusion, and bias training at all levels
of the organization and, specifically, among leadership.
13.33%
Implement pay equity policies that adopt market-based pay scales. 6.67%

74

Recruiting and Hiring Practices
The most prominent recommendation came from 40% of respondents who shared their
organizations should amend recruiting and hiring practices. Recommendations varied from
expanding the candidate pool to how hiring decisions are made to incorporating DE&I initiatives
into recruitment and hiring practices. Some respondents blended DE&I language with their
recommendations.
Respondents’ recommendations included that organizations “intentionally recruit from a
larger pool of external female candidates when open positions are available” and “not have
recommendations made by just one to two individuals.” One respondent recommended that
organizations “require that hiring managers search for diverse candidates.” One respondent
shared recruiting and hiring bias at the CEO level when she shared, “our CEO has a history of
hiring his direct reports from his network or from external recruiting sources. So no high
potential internal women will have the opportunity to advance.” Finally, one respondent
proposed an overview of changes to recruiting and hiring when she shared:
Take holistic view when viewing performance, capabilities, and possibilities for each
potential promotion so as not to always go with what and whom are familiar. When
recruiting for senior executives, it be a requirement that diverse candidates are reviewed.
Last, ensure more gender and racial diversity is in the room when decisions are made
about the top roles.
One survey respondent recommended blending current market pay rates with job offers to further
pay equity when she shared:
Implement pay equity policies whereby job offers include salary ranges and are
determined based on current market comparisons, not what the candidate is currently
75

making. This enables increased focus on the work and additional support of working
parents in the form of childcare and help with household tasks, allowing women to
continue advancing higher and higher despite job demands.
As was discussed in the section for Research Question 2b, respondents overall answered
favorably regarding their salaries being equivalent to or more than their male peers. 56.52% of
respondents shared those policies supporting equal compensation was a factor that facilitates
women’s advancement to top executive/c-suite roles.
Incorporating DE&I initiatives into recruiting and hiring practices, one respondent
recommended that organizations “have a panel of diverse leadership to make hiring
recommendations.” Another respondent suggested requiring gender diversity within the
organization. She shared, “I think they should require gender diversity within the
organization…requiring diverse workforces could be the solution, provided that the candidates
are qualified for the positions they hold.”
One respondent’s insights may have hinted at an imbalance of DE&I in hiring and
promoting practices and further suggested organizations use caution when she shared:
Can’t comment with any validity since I am not privy to what current process are
followed. It is always interesting to see the connections between individuals after the
position has been filled. I can only say it would not be in the best interest of the company
to not consider all qualified candidates, therefore would make the assumption that all
candidates regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation are considered.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
On the topic of DE&I, 33.33% of respondents suggested their organization develop clear
and measurable diversity expectations. As was shared in responses to research question two-b,
76

respondents shared their organizations should incorporate DE&I in “strategic planning,” “hold
managers to a higher standard,” and move beyond the “talk” and written policies to “goals and
metrics.” Respondents recommended that organizations “appropriately prioritize it” (DEI) and
should “prioritize DE&I programs not because of sustainability or shareholder requirements but
because it’s good business.” Another respondent suggested that including DE&I metrics and
goals also relates to hiring practices when she said:
My organization should set specific metrics and goals to increase gender diversity and
put more effort towards identifying bias in the hiring/promotion process at senior ranks.
Often these are implemented at lower ranks and the executives are allowed to follow
“their instincts.”
Participant perspectives about the incorporation of DE&I initiatives also came in
recommendations regarding training. One respondent offered their recommendation to
“introduce more executive leadership training on the subject of gender diversity.” Another
respondent summarized, “I think more diversity, inclusion, and bias training would help at all
levels of an organization.” Finally, another suggested that organizations begin at the top to
“model c-suite level diversity.”
Career Development, Networking, and Mentorship
Several participants offered career development recommendations and included
additional themes such as networking and mentorship. Regarding career pathing and
development, respondents offered recommendations such as “provide clearer career pathing
opportunities for job.” Another respondent offered a proactive approach when she submitted,
“continue to look in advance of open positions and help prepare top talent for opportunities.”
77

Respondents offered comments and recommendations about networking. Indicating that
networking may be a challenge for women in the banking industry, one respondent her insights
that “face time in the office is rewarded. Many women are not able to dedicate as much time
socializing during or after work onsite.” Perhaps a solution to this challenge came from another
respondent who recommended that organizations, “increase and promote women-led employee
networking groups.”
Respondent recommendations also included support for mentoring and mentoring
programs. One participant recommended that organizations should “support mentoring programs
for employees.” Finally, another respondent enlisted a call to action for top leadership when she
recommended, “have those executives speak more and mentor more.”
In summary, participants shared equally that their organizations are doing enough or
should do more to foster gender diversity in top executive/c-suite roles. Their recommendations
include organizational culture and frameworks that incorporate better hiring and promotion
practices, DE&I and bias training programs, and career development programs such as career
pathing, mentoring, and networking. While 50% of participants shared their organizations were
doing enough, none of the responses included that women’s advancement to top executive/c-
suite roles was the responsibility of women. Rather, participants offered organizational
frameworks and improvements that support women’s advancement.
Summary
The study findings aimed to answer the research questions regarding the long-term career
goals of women in the banking industry, the factors that facilitate or inhibit their career
advancement to top executive roles, and the strategies being used by their organizations to
support them. It is noteworthy that this survey was conducted after two years of the industry
78

adjusting to pandemic changes, yet none of the participants mentioned COVID as a mediating
factor to their experiences, perspectives, or recommendations.
Regarding the long-term career goals of participants, overall, they indicated a desire to
continue to develop their careers in the banking industry. Only a handful of participants indicated
their long-term career goals were unknown or uncertain or may take them outside the industry.
Further, participants also indicated overall that they are not interested in serving in top
executive/c-suite roles either in their own organization or another one. This despite nearly the
same percentages indicating they had previously imagined themselves in these roles.
Regarding the factors that inhibit or facilitate their advancement, elements of diversity,
equity, and inclusion were threaded through participants’ qualitative responses. Survey themes
reflected previous literature that indicated gender bias, gender sidelining, lacking organizational
support and programs, and perceptions about women’s leadership abilities as factors limiting
their career advancement. Further, participants shared factors also reflected in previous literature
as facilitating women’s advancement. These factors included hiring and recruiting practices that
blend DEI initiatives, mentoring and sponsorship programs, implicit bias training, support from
executive leadership and strategic planning. The insights, perspectives, and recommendations
survey participants provided informed the recommendations presented in Chapter Five.

79

Chapter Five: Discussion
This study aimed to ascertain the perceptions of women in the banking industry regarding
the environmental factors that facilitate and the barriers that inhibit their ascent to top executive
roles (CEO, CFO, and COO). Further, this study sought to understand women’s perceptions of
the strategies currently used to promote women to top executive roles. Finally, this study aimed
to ascertain the long-term goals of women in the banking industry.
Study data were analyzed and presented in Chapter Four. Chapter Five will discuss the
findings, present recommendations for practice, review limitations and delimitations of the study,
and make recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Findings
Overall, the findings of this study were commensurate with the literature reviewed
regarding the factors that facilitate or inhibit women’s advancement to top executive/c-suite roles
in the banking industry. Participants’ responses to and perspectives of the strategies currently
used by their organizations to increase gender diversity provided insights into the adoption of
these strategies. Respondents’ recommendations provided their feelings about how well some
strategies are working and what other strategies they feel their organizations should implement.
This section aims to connect the study findings to the previous research in the literature review
and to discuss the findings through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s model.
DE&I and Gender Bias/Sidelining
One recurring theme in participants’ responses was workforce diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DE&I) programs and policies. DE&I was referenced in 67% of the responses
participants regarding factors that inhibit their advancement, the policies their organizations have
implemented, and their subsequent recommendations to improve gender diversity. This
80

abundance of DEI references came in various forms using “diversity, equity, inclusion,” “DEI,”
“DE&I,” or a combination of these words. The legislative interventions discussed in Chapter
Two referenced initiatives to drive DE&I.
Gender bias and gender sidelining were prevalent in the study findings. These themes
align with Bronfenbrenner’s mesosystem, reflecting the relationship between systems. Gender
bias impacts women’s career advancement and widens the income gap (De Vita & Magliocco,
2018; Krivkovich et al., 2016). The higher perceptions of bias result in higher stress and lower
career satisfaction in women in first-level managerial roles (Burke et al., 2008). Consistent with
literature, responses to the survey aligned with gender bias and sidelining. Specifically,
statements such as “many companies are still managed by OWM” and “good old boys White
network continue to be the rule” referenced gender bias. Statements like “womens work is not
deemed as valuable” or a “lack of advocacy and awareness at the table where decisions are
made” references gender sidelining.
Participants rated seventeen of the 21 factors in survey question nine at or above the
midpoint. Many of the factors (see Table 5) with the highest ratings referenced gender bias and
sidelining issues and “discrimination.” The top two scores among the rated factors aligned with
gender sidelining issues. Discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or a
combination of these ranked ninth, seventh, thirteenth, and fourth, respectively, with
discrimination based on sexual orientation ranked the lowest score at 5.70. The only
“discrimination” factor rated below the mid-point was “discrimination based on marital status.”
Women ’s Role in Home/Workplace
Within the macrosystem are also societal expectations of women, specifically,
motherhood versus career and as the primary caregiver in the home. Chapter Two discussed
81

strategies that offer balanced support at home and work. Women are two times more likely to
worry that perceptions about their performance will be unsatisfactory due to their caregiving
responsibilities (Uddin et al., 2020). The imbalance can affect career advancement. Banks could
offer programs that address some of the significant barriers that women face, such as childcare
programs, parental leave, and flexible work arrangements. These programs could support
women’s career aspirations while helping the bank retain talent so women do not feel they must
“opt out” (Bankole & Adeyeri, 2014; Noland et al., 2016).
Consistent with the literature, survey responses indicated that these themes were rated
high as reflected by the 21 factors that inhibit women’s career advancement in survey question
nine. Participants rated high the factors that included balancing work and home and lack of
support at work with family responsibilities as well as that motherhood or plans to be a mother
are seen as a hindrance to work performance and lack of childcare/dependent care/elderly parent
care.
I pondered the contradiction between participants recognizing the factors related to home
and work balance which they rated as limiting and the qualitative responses that indicated they
lack drive, self-confidence, and self-esteem. They further shared that “many of the noted barriers
above (Survey Question 9) can be removed with self-determination” and “self-promotion.”
Further research regarding this paradox is needed.
Organizational Factors
In this study, participants identified factors that facilitate their career advancement.
Participants also identified several factors and recommendations for improving organizations and
supporting the ascension of women to top executive positions that were consistent with literature
including networking, career pathing, mentor and sponsorship, and hiring and recruiting
82

practices. The following section discusses the alignment of literature themes and factors reflected
in survey findings.
Networking Frameworks
Previous literature identified women experiencing barriers to their career advancement
resulting from a lack of support that organization influencers can provide (De Vita & Magliocco,
2018; Mate et al., 2019). The inaccessibility of the inner circle negatively impacts women’s
career aspirations and engagement to pursue advancement (De Vita & Magliocco, 2018).
Participants in this study also identified networking as important but challenging because they
rely on “who you know” in order to be “cherry-picked” for opportunities.
Previous literature has also indicated that women feel networking opportunities are
further limited due to their conflicting family and career roles (Mate et al., 2019). Participants in
this study agreed with these sentiments when they shared comments such as, “many women are
not able to dedicate as much time to socializing during or after work.” Mate et al. (2019)
suggested that this challenge underscores the need for women to receive workplace recognition
and forge relationships with key influencers in the organization. One participant stated that
women “lack support and allyship from male executives, peers, and leadership” and have “less
exposure to the board of directors.” Participants also shared that the “lack of opportunities for
business travel and shadowing to learn new skills” limited women’s networking experiences.
Career Paths and Development
Participants shared perspectives on the “lack of clear career pathing programs”
expressing that banks should “help prepare top talent for opportunities.” Participants further
described a need for “comprehensive succession planning involving women to be considered
leaders” as a factor that is missing in their organization. The literature review offers career paths
83

and development in the section on existing strategies to advance women’s careers. Ammerman
and Groysberg (2021) recommended cross-training programs and mentor-guided self-directed
teams of varying functional members to promote a collaborative approach to work and the
culture. They argue that this approach presents women as valuable assets to the organization
rather than an outlier.
Another component recommended in the research includes frequent, unbiased feedback
in formal and informal contexts to develop women (Krivkovich et al., 2016). While participants
did not use the term “feedback,” they stated that career paths should provide “intentional and
specific opportunities for women to engage” and to “gain experience and insight as to what is
needed to perform the role successfully.” This perspective shared as a factor inhibiting women’s
advancement combines career pathing and networking. The literature and the participants’
perspectives also share elements of another organizational factor, mentor and sponsorship
programs.
Mentor and Sponsorship Programs
The final study finding that supported the literature was mentoring and sponsorship
programs. Mentoring and sponsorship were mentioned in over 15% of the participants’ responses
to factors that impact women’s advancement and recommendations to organizations. The
previous literature recognized mentoring and sponsorship programs as an essential element to
help women overcome other career barriers, such as the glass ceiling (Mate et al., 2019; Perrault,
2015). Further, organizations that seek to meet DE&I initiatives can create opportunities for
marginalized groups through a diverse pool of mentors and sponsors (Resnick & Fuller, 2021).
Mate et al. (2019) shared that mentor and sponsorship programs should also blend with
networking within the organization. Participants suggested that more male leaders and executives
84

should be mentoring and providing “a hand up in education and training.” Participants
challenged their organizations to “have executives speak more and mentor more.” Of the factors
banks have implemented to foster the promotion of women to top executive/c-suite roles,
mentoring and sponsorship programs were prevalent.
However, previous literature suggests that mentor and sponsorship programs are not
unique to those already in a low-level management role. Johns (2013) suggested that mentors
and sponsors function as advisors to women in less prominent roles. Mentors help their mentees
to discover and develop talents and abilities and inform women’s pathways to advancement
(Johns, 2013). One factor identified as lacking was “grass roots recruiting for entry-level roles
for individuals to start and advance in the industry.” My former organization referred to this
concept as a “grow your own” philosophy, cultivating talent from the existing associate pool.
These strategies can dismantle the old boys network referred to by study participants as a factor
inhibiting women’s advancement.
Recruiting and Hiring Strategies
In Chapter Two, recruiting and hiring were introduced in the discussion about gender
bias. Participants in this study combined DE&I initiatives with recommendations to improve
hiring and recruiting practices. In fact, 40% of the recommendations offered by participants
included mention of recruiting or hiring.
Previous literature indicates a problem with homophily in candidate pools due to
managers relying on their networks to recruit and hire (Ammerman & Groysberg, 2021).
Participants in this study shared perspectives about the limiting effects of networking on
recruiting and hiring practices, specifically pertaining to having “inner knowledge” about c-suite
opportunities and CEO practices of relying exclusively on their own networks which lack
85

diversity. Specifically, recommendations for recruiting top executive/c-suite roles included
suggestions that “diverse candidates” be considered.
Other recommendations in this study included developing talent within banks that “take a
holistic view” of candidates. Another recommendation offered by participants was to “help
prepare top talent for opportunities.” However, another participant suggested that banks should
broaden recruiting efforts to include “external female candidates.” I pondered if this participant’s
recommendation reflected feelings about the talent pool within their organization, the
organization’s framework to develop women, or some other perspective that would encourage
organizations to look beyond its own workforce. Future research could explore this paradox.
Regarding hiring practices, participants recommended having a “panel of diverse
leadership” to ensure hiring recommendations are made by more than one or two persons and
that members are both gender and racially diverse. One recommendation seemed to align hiring
practices informed by organizational strategic plans that may include gender quotas.
I approached this topic based on my professional experience in the banking industry,
which aligned with the previous literature. My experiences specifically included gender bias and
sidelining, hiring and promotion practices, the lack of access to formalized networking,
mentoring, sponsorship, and career paths and development. The findings of this study were
commensurate with previous literature and participants expressed the importance of DEI in their
recommendations.
Recommendations
This study aimed to gain insights into the perspectives of women in the banking industry
regarding their long-term career goals and the factors that both facilitate and/or inhibit their
career paths. Further, this study aimed to gain participant perspectives about the current
86

strategies and participant recommendations for strategies banks should implement to foster
gender diversity in top executive/c-suite roles. The findings of this study informed the
recommendations discussed in this section.
Based on the results of this study, banks are failing to provide women with the
framework that supports their career aspirations. In this study, 60% of participants have
imagined themselves in a top executive/c-suite role. Yet less than 22% consider these roles to be
part of their long-term career goals or path. Further, participants expressed interest in serving in
these roles in their own organization at roughly 39% and 29% in another organization. These
results beg the question why women who have imagined themselves achieving these career goals
have such low interest in serving in them and even fewer include these roles in their long-term
career plans. Nearly 80% of the participant-identified barriers to career advancement were
founded within organizational/environmental control. These findings indicate that banks should
and must do more to advance women’s careers.
I am proffering three recommendations banks may adopt or implement to support women
and enhance gender diversity in top executive/c-suite roles. These recommendations include a
longitudinal approach to implicit bias training (IBT), diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I)
initiatives blended with recruiting and hiring practices, and mentoring programs with a
sponsorship component. As previously discussed, participants stressed holistic DE&I initiatives
in several responses. As such, this overarching theme informs the recommendations discussed
here.
87

A Longitudinal Approach to Implicit Bias Training
The Current State of IBT
Perceived bias in the workplace is pervasive and impedes organizational success through
its effects (Hunt et al., 2018). Employees of large companies (more than 1,000 employees) who
perceive bias are three times as likely to be disengaged and express intentions to leave the
organization within the year. Further, these same employees are 2.6 times more likely to
withhold ideas or share solutions within the last six months (Hewlett et al., 2017; Hunt et al.,
2018).
Perceived bias leads to employees lacking a sense of belonging, experiencing burnout,
and dissatisfaction with their organization (Hewlett et al., 2017). In Hewlett et al.’s study (2017),
33% reveal that their perceived biases in the workplace left them feeling alienated. Further,
Hewlett et al.’s respondents shared that they were not proud to work for and would not promote
their company as a great place to work (75% and 80%, respectively; 2017). Kirkland and Bohnet
(2017) reported that U.S. companies spend approximately eight billion dollars annually on IBT.
Further, that research shows it is not leading to more diversity (Atewologun et al., 2018;
Bezrukova et al., 2016; Meyer, 2018; Onyeador et al., 2021). IBT costs organizations up to
$6,000 for 50 or more employees for a 1-day course.
Participants in this study shared that more bias training, specifically among leaders, is
needed in their organizations when providing perspectives and insights aligned to research
question three. Research indicates that IBT effectively reduces or changes implicit preferences
immediately following interventions but may deteriorate over time (Bezrukova et al., 2016; Lai
et al., 2016). Specifically, research shows that IBT effectively raises individual awareness, but
positive effects are fleeting and fade (Atewologun et al., 2018; Lai et al., 2016). Some promising
88

indications of IBT found that individuation IBT interventions were effective for at least 70 days
and may support future research and initiatives (Qian et al., 2019).
Evolving Implicit Bias Training
Participants in this study indicated with over two-thirds of their responses to inhibiting
barriers, implementing policies, and recommending factors to improve women’s experience that
a holistic approach to DE&I is needed. Participants’ sentiments support evolving implicit bias
training. Despite limitations in current IBT models, leaders must be responsible for DE&I goals,
initiatives, and accountability (Meyer, 2018; Onyeador et al., 2021). Successful IBT is
complemented by other diversity initiatives targeting awareness and skills development to amend
behavior and attitudes (Bezrukova et al., 2016). Further, these initiatives and IBT are not
conducted as a one-time event but regularly occur over a significant period. IBT interventions
need to be more intensive and longer to have more lasting positive effects (Lai et al., 2016).
Banks developing IBT should leverage the Implicit Association Test and complex
training designs for a longitudinal approach (Atewologun et al., 2018). An organizational
assessment informs the training design to determine deficiencies and design the appropriate
program (Meyer, 2018). The data gathered from the organizational assessment should be shared
with everyone to express the identified issues and the need for change. Data should also inform
the potential risks and influence decision-making, behaviors, and performance (Meyer, 2018).
An IBT program with a longitudinal approach should leverage a 1-day course and
quarterly follow-up training. Banks relying on a consulting firm can build IBT initiatives that
align with the organization’s strategic plan and establishes goals for DE&I supported through
IBT that shifts bank culture. Banks that include DE&I in its strategic plan can punctuate the
importance of and expectations for adoption and execution of IBT.
89

In a bank, this training would include senior leaders and branch managers. Bank leaders
and managers would be required to attend and participate in all IBT. Bank leaders and managers
should receive training in conducting appropriate hiring and interviewing practices as well as in
conducting bias-free performance evaluations (Thomas et al., 2021). Banks should establish clear
and specific criteria for each of these processes as well as reminders of how to avoid bias before
leaders or managers engage in them (Thomas et al., 2021).
Course delivery can include a blend of in-person workshops for the one-day courses and
virtual classroom and eLearning modules for quarterly follow-up training. Further, pre- and post-
training assessments that measure progress in overcoming bias could inform banks to program
successes as well as determine a prescriptive approach for the leader or manager. Quarterly
topics and trainings could include a variety of media, workshops, and resources. Quarterly
follow-up training should also include the pre- and post-training assessments to measure bias and
progress achieved from the intervention.
In most banks, the expectations set by the c-suite around the importance of IBT would be
supported and executed by human resources with the chief human resource officer (CHRO)
reporting to the board progress achieved. While bank leaders and managers are the primary
audience for the proposed program, human resources should include IBT as part of the
development plans for aspiring leaders. The CHRO is accountable for reporting results but
accountability for achieving expectations would be incorporated into leader and manager
performance reviews.
Banks that have established DE&I company sponsors, directors, or groups could also
own the program as described above. Further, these associates could provide additional resources
in the forms of one-on-one coaching and mentoring through bias challenges. Banks should
90

determine the most appropriate way to make these resources available in its organization. For
example, smaller organizations might establish coaching and mentoring assignments of leaders
and managers to a team member certified in DE&I and bias training. Larger banks might
establish an anonymous hotline for leaders and managers to consult.
While bias may never be eliminated, consistently creating spaces for learning and
discussions can support managers and leaders to address their biases to prevent intrusion in their
day-to-day practices. A consistent cycle of IBT learning and development as a framework to
support improvement can further organization DE&I goals. Organizations should provide
transparency both to its goals of establishing and maintaining an inclusive culture by lessening
the pervasive effects of bias and its progress in achieving the same.
There is a business case for reducing bias and increasing diversity which may sway resisters
to reconsider long-term programs for change. Hunt et al. (2018) found that organizations with
gender-diverse executive teams were 21% more likely to experience above-average profitability.
Those with ethnically and culturally diverse executive teams were 33% more likely to
outperform (Hunt et al., 2018).
Hiring and Recruiting Practices
Chapter Two included a discussion of legislative interventions to foster gender diversity.
Specifically, Sect.342 of the Dodd-Frank Act established expectations for greater diversity in
entities reporting to federal financial agencies (Fullerton & Kaufman, 2014). Overall, the
percentage of women on BoDs increased from 10.3% to 12.2%. Further, banks having no women
on their BoDs decreased from 39% to 31%, and banks with three or more women on their BoDs
nearly doubled from 7.4% to 13.5% since Sect.342 was established (Geyfman et al., 2018).
91

However, studies have found that court-mandated state-level policies that aim to reduce
bias positively affect hiring opportunities for White women but not for WOC and members of
the LGBTQ community (Hirsh & YoungJoo, 2017). Policy design that includes increased
organizational accountability through established and specific recruitment, hiring, or promotion
plans with monitoring practices increases management opportunities for marginalized groups
(Hirsh & YoungJoo, 2017). In this study, participants responding to survey questions aligned
with research questions two and three indicated the importance of incorporating DE&I into
hiring and recruiting practices.
Bank executives must set the tone conveying the importance of DE&I to the organization
and connect hiring, recruiting, and promoting practices (Testy, 2011). However, the bank’s
diversity expectations must accompany actions supporting them. Testy (2011) recommended that
executives model expectations by hiring diverse leaders, developing diverse internal talent, and
seeking diverse candidates when recruiting outside the organization. Challenges are present, as
found in Fernandez-Mateo and Fernandez’s (2016) study, which indicated that the number of
women in the talent pool for top executive roles is in short supply. Thorough hiring practices
consider several aspects such as job descriptions, interviews, hiring, and accountability. As
previously indicated in the recommendation for a longitudinal approach to implicit bias training,
aspects specific to hiring and performance evaluation practices, which could influence
opportunities for internal candidates to advance, should be incorporated.
Banks should review job descriptions and look to expand the definition of excellence in
the role (Testy, 2011). Often, hiring organizations look for experience rather than potential,
which leads to seeking candidates already in the role (Fernandez-Mateo & Fernandez, 2016). For
example, when a CFO position is open, organizations tend to look for candidates already in the
92

role in another organization. A different approach to job descriptions that opens candidate
requirements and preferred experience with less focus on degrees and more on desired
characteristics can also expand the candidate pool (Testy, 2011). Herbison (2022) recommended
hiring for cultural fit over skill set, and that personality traits provide the foundation for all other
desired candidate traits. This practice could inform the bank’s job description language. Banks
should also “cast a wide net” (Testy, 2011, p. 1712) to seek candidates in non-traditional ways. If
the candidate pool is shallow, the bank must leverage external candidate bases such as
professional organizations or external search firms (Fernandez-Mateo & Fernandez, 2016; Testy,
2011). “Diversity requires searching for excellence and for promise, not for replicas of oneself”
(Testy, 2011, p. 1713).
Hiring practices and processes should include a committee of diverse leaders conducting
and discussing interviews (Testy, 2011). These committee members should be educated about
implicit bias and maintain favorable and realistic perspectives about the bank’s diversity goals
(Testy, 2011). To ensure the committee remains on task and maintains the open discussion, one
committee member should be the watchful participant holding the group accountable (Testy,
2011). Often, hiring committees use post-interview voting strategies to determine the ideal
candidate. Banks should require hiring committees to forego voting for discussions about the
candidate and her cultural fit and potential (Herbison, 2022; Testy, 2011).
Banks need additional accountability regarding their recruiting, hiring, development, and
promotion practices to support gender diversity in top executive/c-suite roles. Accountability
could include sharing diversity results withing the organization, incorporating diversity goals
with leaders’ performance reviews, and considering financial incentives when progress is made
(Thomas et al., 2021). As shared in the literature review, Sect.342 of the Dodd-Frank Act directs
93

the banking industry to increase gender diversity among the c-suite with oversight provided by
the OMWI. However, the agency’s model in reply to Sect.342 allows for bank’s self-assessment,
voluntary disclosure of assessment results, and no enforcement provisions (FDIC, 2018; SEC,
n.d.). As such, banks must develop accountability practices such as regularly assessing progress
toward diversity goals (Testy, 2011). Further, banks should hold executives accountable for
shortfalls in diversity goals and deviations in the established process (Testy, 2011).
Accountability would include evaluating the effectiveness of executing diversity goal
expectations within the areas of the bank that c-suite members lead (Testy, 2011).
Mentor Programs With a Sponsor Component
Participants in this study rated the lack of mentoring as the third most important of 21
factors that inhibit their advancement to top executive/c-suite roles. Further, mentoring was
mentioned in 15% of the recommendations participants made to their organizations or shared
that their organizations had developed to support them. Among this study’s participants, the
importance of mentoring influenced findings in both research questions two and three.
Mentor programs may improve job satisfaction leading to talent retention (Dworkin et al.,
2018; Tolar, 2012; Turner-Moffatt, 2019). The average voluntary turnover rate in the United
States is 24.6% (BLS, 2019). Rockoff (2008) found that mentoring reduced turnover intention by
4.5%. Mentoring, then, may reduce overall turnover intention to nearly 20%. Gallup (2019)
estimated that turnover costs organizations one and one-half to two times the lost employee’s
annual salary. Mentees express that having a mentor is a crucial factor in the pathway to
leadership (Tolar, 2012). Mentors offer mentees encouragement through setbacks and help shape
the vision of the mentee’s future (Tolar, 2012). There are various mentor program designs, and
banks may choose the program best suited to their needs. Mentor programs should include
94

mentor training to deliver appropriate career-related support to mentees and consider mentoring
outcomes in weighting the mentor’s performance (Park et al., 2016).
One program that banks should consider is the Group Mentoring Program design. This
design includes one mentor with a small group of mentees guiding, acting as an ally, and
facilitating in-group peer mentoring. Special attention to mentor selection is needed in this
program to ensure the mentor possesses the ability to energize and activate the mentees’ group
(Gisbert-Trejo et al., 2021; Park et al., 2016). This program design can be especially effective
when mentees are plentiful and mentors are limited, or when development for several mentees is
connected to the mentor’s expertise to a specific initiative (Gisbert-Trejo et al., 2021).
Mentor programs create networking opportunities that allow women to dissociate from
the negative assumptions about them when balancing traditional caregiver responsibilities while
growing their careers (Dworkin et al., 2018). Mentorship offers women the opportunity to
articulate and set goals, creating a sense that they are valued by their organization and making
them less likely to leave (Turner-Moffatt, 2019). Further, mentees may develop greater
confidence and self-efficacy by acquiring new skills and achieving positive outcomes through
strengthened accountability in the mentor/mentee relationship (Turner-Moffatt, 2019).
Some informal mentoring occurs through executive leaders’ modeled behavior (Dworkin
et al., 2018). However, structured, and formal mentoring programs can provide more support and
positively impact performance outcomes and professional development (Grima et al., 2014;
Tolar, 2012).
Sponsors are people in an organization who may guide and counsel but whose primary
function is to advocate for another (Philpott, 2020). Sponsors champion additional opportunities
such as leadership, committee participation, and challenging project assignments for the mentee.
95

Mentors may go beyond and leverage influence as a promoter for the mentee, thus assuming the
additional sponsor role (Helms et al., 2016). Mentors who also sponsor a mentee can increase
learning and minimize developing and recruiting costs by focusing on the core competencies
needed to succeed in the organization (Helms et al., 2016).
Once the organization determines the appropriate design for its mentor program and
selects the mentors and mentees to participate, it should train mentors and mentees (Grima et al.,
2014; Park et al., 2016). I recommend a 4-hour trainer-led workshop for each role to define the
program’s parameters and set expectations for participation and deliverables. The training
workshops should be mandatory for participation in the mentor program. Mentor participation
should be encouraged but voluntary, as mandatory mentor programs may lead to disengagement
rather than active participation (Tolar, 2012).
The costs associated with this program include but are not limited to:
• Costs of mentors’ and mentees’ time to participate in their respective training
workshops and 2 hours of formal mentoring per week for 48 weeks,
• Cost of the trainer to deliver each of the 4-hour workshops, and
• Cost of delivery systems for mentors and mentees to participate in the workshop in a
virtual setting.
Again, costs associated with the mentoring programs banks choose can be offset by the
benefits. Grima et al. (2014) found that approximately 87% of the mentors and mentees surveyed
report increased job performance because of their mentoring relationships. Research indicates
that job satisfaction positively impacts turnover intention and performance (Rockoff, 2008;
Grima et al., 2014). Job satisfaction increases employee engagement which can influence
96

performance by 59.7% (Anitha, 2014). Moreover, Chatterjee (2021) found that productivity
increases by 24% due to mentoring relationships.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations existed in this research study. Limitations are the potential
weaknesses of the study outside the researcher’s direct control (Simon, 2011). Delimitations are
the researcher’s choices to limit the study’s scope and boundaries (Simon, 2011). Limitations
and delimitations that existed in this study are presented in this section.
Data in this study were collected from an online survey completed by anonymous
participants in March, 2022. My experience in the banking industry was that women assess their
careers with more scrutiny after the beginning of the year when new goals and objectives are
assigned. The timing could have limited participants’ perspectives or participation in the survey.
Participants were advised in the survey introduction that to proceed, they agreed that they self-
identified as a woman and had worked in the banking industry for a minimum of 3 years. Since
the survey was anonymous, I could not verify these participant characteristics.
Additionally, the survey was shared among my social media network, limiting the
participants’ scope. I requested that my contacts share the survey link among their networks.
However, it is unknown how homogenous my network is to my contacts. Time expectations of
the dissertation process limited my reach beyond my network.
In addition, to protect participant anonymity, I did not have access to participant contact
information to gain clarification of respondents’ answers. Further, asking follow-up questions
about responses could have helped me gain insights into intent and tone. Finally, though the
survey included questions with open-essay text boxes, I was not privy to the respondents’ tone or
emotion behind their responses.
97

As shared, delimitations are imposed by the researcher. In this study, I chose a problem
of practice specific to women in the banking industry, limiting both the scope of gender and
industry for data collection. Choosing the underrepresentation of women in top executive roles in
the banking industry imposed additional limits by rejecting other problems of practice. Further,
the RQs aligned with the problem of practice were design limits that narrowed the focus of this
study.
The study design using a mixed-method questions survey further limited the breadth of
participant responses and prevented me from observing participants’ emotions, body language,
and facial expressions. While the survey design allowed for additional narrative through open-
ended questions, participants experienced a limitation compared to an in-person interview.
Finally, surveying through online social media platforms eliminated participants who did not
utilize social media or felt uncomfortable with or lacked access to devices that support these
platforms.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research could address many of these limitations. Studies that include more
demographic questions may help researchers understand differences between WOC and White
women, for example. Further, theories such as intersectionality theory as the study’s theoretical
framework could be leveraged to gain additional insights. Future studies could include other
marginalized groups or different industries.
Future studies could include gaining permission to share the survey among bank
employees and/or members of banking industry professional organizations. A longitudinal study
may provide researchers with richer data about the participants’ perceptions of their long-term
career goals and how they may evolve. Further, a longitudinal study could provide insights into
98

the factors that facilitate or inhibit women’s career advancement in conjunction with their
changing personal and professional needs and aspirations.
Future studies may also include a combination of survey and qualitative interviews.
Qualitative interview participants may be survey participants who volunteer or a separate group
of women. Again, confidentiality rather than anonymity would apply to reengage with
participants for each subsequent survey or to engage in a qualitative interview.
The contradiction between the percentage of participants who have imagined themselves
in the top executive/c-suite roles (60%), the percentage of participants who listed these roles
among their long-term career goals (approximately 22%), and the percentage of participants who
are not interested in serving in these roles in their organizations (63.33%) or another organization
(71.43%), should be further explored in future research. A study design that incorporates these
survey questions in an interview protocol could provide future researchers opportunities to gain
additional insights in their follow-up questions. Gaining insights here may further inform what
mechanisms or frameworks should be established to support women’s career aspirations and
dreams.
Future qualitative research studies on this topic could inform a deeper understanding of
the long-term career goals of women in the banking industry as well as the factors women feel
facilitate or inhibit their trajectory. Semi-structured qualitative interviews informed by
participant responses could provide additional insights into women’s potentially changing career
needs based on participants’ intersectionality.
Conclusion
Banks risk losing underutilized talent by not developing the women in their workforce
(Rossi et al., 2017). I chose to explore the underrepresentation of women in top executive/c-suite
99

roles in the banking industry based on my personal experience. As a young woman entering the
industry, I imagined myself in the c-suite effectuating change and mentoring more women up the
ladder. By the time I left the industry, I felt the lack of opportunities to advance were my failures
and not the failing of my organization to establish the framework necessary to advance.
Throughout my career, I met women whose aspirations matched mine. However, they
experienced the lack of an organizational framework to support their dreams just as the women
participating in this study have shared. Their organizations failed to offer clear career paths
supported by the mechanisms identified in this study. Participants of this study indicated they
experienced men being promoted ahead of them despite their higher education and performance.
Participants indicated their organizations lacked frameworks to provide mentoring, networking,
and access to influencers. Participants in this study indicated they were not provided a clear
development path.
In addition to the many perspectives and insights shared in this study, the findings that
stand out are that 60% of participants have imagined themselves in top executive/c-suite roles
and less than 22% include these roles in their long-term career goals. In fact, high percentages of
respondents share no interest to serve in these roles in their own organization (63.33%) and no
interest or are unsure if they would serve in these roles in another organization (71.43%). These
data indicate that banks are failing to develop women and keep them engaged to pursue their
dreams. Women exiting the industry because banks fail to provide them with the appropriate
frameworks to develop and grow their careers is not an effective solution.
The business case supporting more women serving in top executive/c-suite roles is clear
(Geyfman et al., 2018; Johns, 2013; Noland et al., 2016; Oyotode-Adebile & Ali Raja, 2019;
Rossi et al., 2017; & Srivastava et al., 2018). In this study, participants identified the factors
100

needed to develop their careers and the policies their organizations have implemented to foster
gender diversity in the c-suite. Further, study participants indicated which factors inhibit their
career pursuits. Study findings, participant perspectives, and the recommendations provided
align with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model. To encourage women to pursue top executive/c-
suite roles, banks must align policies, practices, and programs to the factors that support women
and their pursuits.

101

References
Abdullah, S. N. (2014). The causes of gender diversity in Malaysian large firms. The Journal of
Management and Governance, 18(4), 1137–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-013-
9279-0
Afande, F. O. (2015). Factors affecting career development of women employees in the banking
industry in Kenya. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(5), 1–36.
Alcorn, C. (2021). “Racial bias runs deep” at America’s largest banks, study says. CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/18/investing/bank-diversity-racial-bias-study/index.html
Ammerman, C., & Groysberg, B. (2021). How to close the gender gap: You have to be
systematic. Harvard Business Review, 99(3), 124.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3),
308–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008
Atewologun, D., Cornish, T., & Tresh, F. (2018). Unconscious bias training: An assessment of
the evidence for effectiveness. Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report
Series.
Bank of America. (n.d.). Our global workforce. Retrieved September 12, 2021, from
https://about.bankofamerica.com/en/making-an-impact/our-global-workforce
Bankole, A. O., & Adeyeri, D. L. (2014). Work schedule and family life of married women in
the Nigerian banking industry: A study of selected banks in Lagos. Gender & Behaviour,
12(1), 6002–6015.
102

Barroso, A., & Brown, A. (2021, May 25). Gender pay gap in U.S. held steady in 2020. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/25/gender-pay-gap-
facts/
Bellou, A., & Cardia, E. (2017). Occupations after WWII: The legacy of Rosie the Riveter $.
Explorations in Economic History, 62, 124–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2016.03.004
Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of
over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin,
142(11), 1227-1274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul00000067
Booker, B. (2015, July 31). Black “Rosies” of WWII opened doors for others. The Philadelphia
Tribune. https://www.phillytrib.com/lifestyle/black-rosies-of-wwii-opened-doors-for-
others/article_007f433b-c4d5-5359-8d58-7214c8d70069.html?mode=jqm
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Women in the labor force: A databook. BlsReports.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2019/home.htm
Burke, R. J., Koyuncu, M., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2008). Still a man’s world: Implications for
managerial and professional women in a Turkish bank. Gender in Management, 23(4),
278–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542410810878086
Catalyst. (2020). Women in management. https://doi.org/https://www.catalyst.org/research/
women-in-management/
Chatterjee, Dey, A. ., & Chaturvedi, H. (2021). Effect of Mentoring on Job Performance among
Indian Millennials: A Quantitative Study. International Journal of Evidence Based
Coaching and Mentoring, 19(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.24384/nq43-ar60
103

Chauhan, M. G., & Bhakri, S. (2022). Career success of women: Role of family responsibilities,
mentoring, and perceived organizational support. Vision: The Journal of Business
Perspective, 26(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629211024887
Cimirotić, R., Duller, V., Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B., Gärtner, B., & Hiebl, M. R. W. (2017).
Enabling factors that contribute to women reaching leadership positions in business
organizations: The case of management accountants. Management Research Review,
40(2), 165–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2014-0233
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964). Retrieved from
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf
Civil Rights Act of 1991 § 109, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (1991). Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/3353?s=1&r=51
Correll, S. J. (2017). SWS 2016 feminist lecture: Reducing gender biases in modern workplaces.
Gender & Society, 31(6), 725–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217738518
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Damian, J. (2021, August 9). America’s 10 biggest banks. Mortgage Professional America.
https://www.mpamag.com/us/mortgage-industry/guides/americas-10-biggest-
banks/301707
De Vita, L., & Magliocco, A. (2018). Effects of gender quotas in Italy: A first impact assessment
in the Italian banking sector. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,
38(7-8), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-11-2017-0150
De’zhon, G., & Elhalaby, R. (2020, December 3). 2020 bank board diversity. Greenlining.
https://greenlining.org/publications/2020/bank-board-diversity-report/
104

Dickerson. (2010). Women in the senior executive service of the United States federal
government: An exploratory quantitative investigation (Vol. 71, Issue 10). ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 12 U.S.C. § 5301.
Dworkin, Schipani, C. A., Milliken, F. J., & Kneeland, M. K. (2018). Assessing the progress of
women in corporate America: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
American Business Law Journal, 55(4), 721–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12132
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2006). Diversity in the Finance Industry U.S.
https://www.eeoc.gov/specialreport/diversity-finance-industry
Exec. Order No. 14035, Presidential Actions (June 25, 2021).
Fang, P. Y., Halim, F. B. A., Muda, A. L. A., & Bandar, N. F. A. (2018). Women’s perception of
career barriers according to life stages: A case of the Malaysian banking industry. Global
Business and Management Research, 10(2), 106–114.
Farris, P. (2020). 11 reasons you should work at women-led companies. Leadership Excellence,
37(5), 46–51.
Federal Deposit Insurance Commission. (2018). Section 342 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act 2018: Report to Congress.
Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Fernandez, R. M. (2016). Bending the pipeline? Executive search and
gender inequality in hiring for top management jobs. Management Science, 62(12),
3636–3655. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2315
Fink, J. (2018). Gender sidelining and the problem of unactionable discrimination. Stanford Law
& Policy Review, 29(1), 57.
105

Fullerton, J. F., & Kaufman, J. (2014). Five key issues impacting employers in the financial
services industry. The Banking Law Journal, 131(3), 243.
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2008). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human
development (4th ed.). Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Geyfman, V., Cooper, W. A., & Davis, L. M. (2018). Board Gender Diversity and Bank
Performance. Journal of Business Diversity, 18(1), 51–67.
Gisbert-Trejo, N., Albizu, E., Landeta, J., & Fernández-Ferrín, P. (2021). Mentoring programs
implementation: differences between group and individual mentoring. Development and
Learning in Organizations, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-
05-2021-0091
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house”.
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 7.
Grima, Paillé, P., H. Mejia, J., & Prud’homme, L. (2014). Exploring the benefits of mentoring
activities for the mentor. Career Development International, 19(4), 469–490.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-05-2012-0056
Haslett, K. L., & Dholakia, G. (2018). U.S. banking, little progress in recruiting female CEOs.
SNL Financial Extra.
Helms, Arfken, D. E., & Bellar, S. (2016). The importance of mentoring and sponsorship in
women’s career development. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 81(3), 4–16.
Herbison, G. (2022). The formula for finding the right fit for your team. Journal of Financial
Planning, 35(3), 46–48.
106

Hinojosa, A. S., Gardner, W. L., Walker, H. J., Cogliser, C., & Gullifor, D. (2017). A review of
cognitive dissonance theory in management research: Opportunities for further
development. Journal of Management, 43(1), 170–199.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316668236
Hirsh, E., & YoungJoo, C. (2017). Mandating change: The impact of court-ordered policy
changes on managerial diversity. ILR Review, 70(1), 42–72.
https://doi.org./10.1177/0019793916668880
Hunt, V., Yee, L., Prince, S., & Dixon-Fyle, S. (2018, January 18). Delivering through diversity.
McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-
organizational-performance/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity
International Labor Organization. (2019). A quantum leap for gender equality: For a better future
of work for all (2019). https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---
dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_674831.pdf
Johns, M. L. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling: Structural, cultural, and organizational barriers
preventing women from achieving senior and executive positions. American Health
Information Management Association.
Kanter, R. M. (1987). Men and Women of the Corporation Revisited: Interview with Rosabeth
Moss Kanter. Human Resource Management, 26(2), 257–263.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930260209
Kirkland, R., & Bohnet, I. (2017). Focusing on what works for workplace diversity. McKinsey
Insights.
107

Krivkovich, A., Robinson, K., Starikova, I., Valentino, R., & Yee, L. (2016). In corporate
America, women fall behind early and continue to lose ground with every step. Retrieved
July 24, 2021, from https://womenintheworkplace.com/2016
Lai, C. K., Skinner, A. L., Cooley, E., Murrar, S., Brauer, M., Devos, T., Calanchini, J., Xiao, Y.
J., Pedram, C., Marshburn, C. K., Simon, S., Blanchar, J. C., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Conway, J.,
Redford, L., Klein, R. A., Roussos, G., Schellhaas, F. M. H., Burns, M., … Nosek, B. A.
(2016). Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time.
Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 145(8), 1001–1016.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000179
Mate, S. E., McDonald, M., & Do, T. (2019). The barriers and enablers to career and leadership
development. International Journal of Organizational Analysis (2005), 27(4), 857–874.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (pp. 96-104). Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, C. (2018). How to counteract unconscious biases. Journal of Accountancy, 225(2), 40.
Meyerson, D. E., & Fletcher, J. K. (2000). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling.
Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 127.
Miller, C. C., Quealy, K., & Sanger-Katz, M. (2018, April 24). The top jobs where women are
outnumbered by men named John. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2018/04/24/upshot/women-and-men-named-john.html
Miller, K., & Vagins, D. J. (2018). The simple truth about the gender pay gap. American
Association of University Women. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED596219
108

Mitchell, T. (2020). A century after women gained the right to vote, the majority of Americans
see work to do on gender equality. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/socialtrends/2020/07/07/a-century-after-womengained-the-
right-to-vote-majority-of-Americans-see-work-to-do-on-genderequality/
Newman, L. (2020). The power of American banking sector. Harvard Model Congress.
Noland, M., Moran, T., & Kotschwar, B. (2016). Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a
global survey. Peterson Institute for International Economics.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2729348
Onyeador, I. N., Hudson, S. T. J., & Lewis, N. A. (2021). Moving beyond implicit bias training:
Policy insights for increasing organizational diversity. Policy Insights from the
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220983840
Orbach, R. (2017). Bringing talent off the bench and into the game: The underrepresentation of
women in the boardroom. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 22(2), 203.
Oyotode-Adebile, R. M., & Ali Raja, Z. (2019). Board gender diversity and U.S. corporate
bonds. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 15(5), 771–791.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-10-2018-0290
Park, J. H., Newman, A., Zhang, L., Wu, C., & Hooke, A. (2016). Mentoring functions and
turnover intention: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(11), 1173–1191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1062038
Parker, K., & Horowitz, J. M. (2022). Majority of workers who quit a job in 2021 cite low pay,
no opportunities for advancement, feeling disrespected. Pew Research Center.
109

Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3) (REL 2016-160). U.S.
Department of Education. from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/
Perrault, E. (2015). Why Does board gender diversity matter and how do we get there? The role
of shareholder activism in deinstitutionalizing old boys’ networks. Journal of Business
Ethics, 128(1), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2092-0
Philpott, M. (2020). How mentorship and sponsorship build your career. Journal of
Accountancy, 229(5), 1–3.
Qian, M. K., Quinn, P. C., Heyman, G. D., Pascalis, O., Fu, G., & Lee, K. (2019). A long‐term
effect of perceptual individuation training on reducing implicit racial bias in preschool
children. Child Development, 90(3), e290–e305. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12971
Resnick, S., & Fuller, J. C. (2021). Diversity, equity, and inclusion: Meeting new demands and
requirements—for accountability. Board Leadership, 2021(174), 4–8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bl.30184
Rincón, V., González, M., & Barrero, K. (2017). Women and leadership: Gender barriers to
senior management positions. Intangible Capital, 13(2), 319–386.
https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.889
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rockoff. (2008). Does mentoring reduce turnover and improve skills of new employees?
Evidence from teachers in New York City. National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w13868
110

Rose, E. K. (2018). The rise and fall of female labor force participation during World War II in
the United States. The Journal of Economic History, 78(3), 673–711.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050718000323
Rossi, M., Galasso, S., & Capasso, A. (2017). Women do it better: An investigation on the
association between gender diversity in board of directors and the financial performance.
International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(6), 41–50.
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Shreffler, M. B., Shreffler, J. R., & Murfree, J. R. (2019). Barriers to advancement of female
faculty in higher education: An examination of student evaluations of teaching, work-
family conflict and perceived organizational support. Journal of Higher Education
Theory and Practice, 19(8), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v19i8.2673
Srivastava, V., Das, N., & Pattanayak, J. K. (2018). Women on boards in India: A need or
tokenism? Management Decision, 56(8), 1769–1786. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-
2017-0690
Subramaniam, A., Arumugam, T., & Abu Baker Akeel, A. B. A. (2013). Demographic and
family related barriers on women managers’ career development. Asian Social Science,
10(1), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n1p86
Taylor. (2004). Senior executive women in the federal government: Exploring their views on
significant career -progression issues. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Testy, K. Y. (2011). Best practices for hiring and retaining a diverse law faculty. Iowa Law
Review, 96(5), 1707–1717.
Thomas, R., Cooper, M., Cardazone, G., Urban, K., Bohrer, A. L., Long, M., Yee, L.,
Krivkovich, A., Huang, J., Prince, S., Kumar, A., & Coury, S. (2020). Women in the
111

workplace 2020. National Centre for Vocational Education Research.
https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:88713
Thomas, R., Cooper, M., McShane Urban, K., Cardazone, G., Bohrer, A., Mahajan, S., Yee, L.,
Krivkovich, A., Huang, J., Rambachan, I., Burns, T., & Trkulja, T. (2021). Women in the
workplace 2021. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace
Tolar. (2012). Mentoring Experiences of High-Achieving Women. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 14(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422312436415
Turner-Moffatt, C. (2019). The power of mentorship. Professional Safety, 64(8), 17–19.
Uddin, M., Ali, K. B., & Khan, M. A. (2020). Impact of perceived family support, workplace
support, and work-life balance policies on work life balance among female bankers in
Bangladesh. International Journal of Economics, Management, and Accounting, 28(1),
97–122.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Retrieved August 20, 2021, from https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-
rights-act-1964
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (n.d.). Implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Retrieved August 20, 2021, from
https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/dodd-frank.shtml
Weitz, L. (2016). Examining the underrepresentation of women leadership within the securities
brokerage industry (Publication No. 10061492) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral
University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

112

Appendix A: Online Survey
This study aims to better understand the long-term career goals of women in the banking
industry. This study further aims to identify and understand women’s perception of the factors
that facilitate and inhibit advancement to top executive/c-suite roles, specifically CEO, CFO, and
COO.
Your participation provides the opportunity to share your experiences and perceptions.
By completing this survey, you agree that you have worked in the U.S. Banking Industry, not a
third-party or temporary agency, for a minimum of three years, and self-identify as a woman.
Your participation and responses to this survey are anonymous and will not be shared with your
organization.
Mobile users should hold their devices in landscape view for the best experience. This
survey is not timed but should take approximately 10 minutes to complete.
To access additional information about this study, click here: Information sheet for
exempt research
Q1 Which of the following top executive roles in your organization are currently filled by
women? (check all that apply; RQ2)
o CEO - Chief Executive Officer
o CFO - Chief Financial Officer
o COO - Chief Operating Officer
o CHRO - Chief Human Resources Officer
o CCO - Chief Compliance Officer
o CMO - Chief Marketing Officer
o CRO - Chief Risk Officer

113

Q2 Are you currently in a top executive/c-suite role in your organization? (RQ 1)
o Yes
o No

Q3 (if ‘No’ on Q2) How would you describe your current role in your organization? (RQ 1)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Q4 (if ‘No’ on Q2 & answer Q3) Are you interested in serving in a top executive/c-suite role in
your current organization? (RQ 1)
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know

Q5 (if ‘No’ on Q2 & answer Q3 & Q4) Are you interested in serving in a top executive/c-suite
role in another organization? (RQ 1)
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know

Q6 Have you ever imagined yourself in a top executive role (CEO/CFO/COO)?(RQ 1)
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know

Q7 (if ‘No’ to Q6) Why do you feel this way? (RQ 1)
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Q8 How would you describe your long-term career goals? (RQ 1)
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

114

Q9 In your opinion, to what extent do the following barriers limit the advancement of women to
the c-suite/executive leadership in the banking industry? (Rate from “0” being “Not at all” to
“10” being “A great deal”) (RQ2)

Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A great deal
Discrimination based on gender(RQ2)

Discrimination based on race
(RQ2)
Discrimination based on sexual orientation
(RQ2)

Discrimination based on a combination of
gender, race, and/or sexual orientation
Lack of networking (RQ2) )

Lack of role models (RQ2)

Lack of mentoring (RQ2)

Men are promoted despite women
performing at a higher level (RQ2)
Women are not perceived as leaders despite
performing at a high level (RQ2)
Women are not promoted despite attaining
higher educational degrees (RQ2)
Lack of opportunity for professional
development (RQ2)
Lack of opportunity for challenging work
assignments (RQ2)
Lack of performance feedback (RQ2)

Lack of direction to improve performance
(RQ2)
Lack of support to advance education (RQ2)

Discrimination based on marital status

Motherhood or planning to be a mother is
looked at as a hindrance to work
performance (RQ2)

Balancing work and home life (RQ2)

Lack of support at work with family
responsibilities (RQ2)
Lack of support at home with family
responsibilities (RQ2)
Lack of childcare/dependent care/elderly
parent care (RQ2)
115

Q10 What other barriers not listed above do you feel impact women advancing to top executive/
c-suite roles in the banking industry? (RQ 1&2)
Q11 Has your company implemented the following operating policies to foster the promotion of
women to top executive roles (CEO, CFO, COO)? (RQ 3)

Yes (1) No (2) I do not
know
(3)
Inclusion of policies that facilitate the promotion of women to
top executive roles (RQ3)

Established specific policies mandating that all qualified
individuals have equal access and opportunity to compete
based on ability and merit (RQ3)

Inclusion of specific diversity training goals and objectives in
annual plans that facilitate the promotion of women to top
executive roles (RQ3)

Creation of a gender-equity policy in respect to equal
compensation (RQ3)

Unconscious-bias training for leaders and/or the entire
organization (RQ3)

Q12 Please list any other factors implemented in your company to foster the promotion of
women to top executive roles (CEO, CFO, COO). (RQ 3)
________________________________________________________________

Q13 Do you feel your organization should be doing less, is doing enough, or should be doing
more to increase gender diversity in top executive roles?
o Should do less
o Is doing enough
o Should do more

Q14 (if answer ‘Should do less’ or ‘Should do more’ on Q13) What recommendations would you
make to your organization to do more to increase gender diversity in top executive roles?
_______________________________________________________________

116

Q15 I feel I earn a salary equivalent to or more than my male peers. (RQ 1)
o Strongly agree (1)
o Agree (2)
o Disagree (3)
o Strongly Disagree (4)
o Do not know (5)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap

PDF

The great balancing act: women seeking work-life balance during COVID-19

PDF

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

PDF

Transgender experience in the U.S. military: opportunities for effective inclusion

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

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

PDF

Hail to the chief: an exploration of female chief executives’ successes

PDF

Shelf awareness: public librarians and diverse collections

PDF

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

PDF

Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership

PDF

Where are the female executive leaders?

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

Navy social and organizational culture and their influence on female officer retention

PDF

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

PDF

Shattering the glass ceiling: examining invisible barriers to women’s career progression in South Korean international schools

PDF

Leveraging the power of data-driven storytelling: C-suite executive leadership approaches to improving business performance

PDF

Averting the gaze: gender bias in the fashion industry

PDF

The leadership labyrinth: women's journey to chief future officer

PDF

In the shadows: the perceived experiences of women principals in secondary schools

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Howell Wayman, Stacey Lynn (author)

Core Title Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/03/2022

Defense Date 07/11/2022

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

Tag banking industry,career paths,c-suite,gender bias,gender diversity,gender sidelining,mentorship,OAI-PMH Harvest,sponsorship,top executive

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email staceywayman719@gmail.com,swayman@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376110

Unique identifier UC111376110

Legacy Identifier etd-HowellWaym-11095

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Howell Wayman, Stacey Lynn

Type texts

Source 20220804-usctheses-batch-969 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu