University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Solving for the luck factor: leveling access to leadership through an organization-based sponsorship program

(USC Thesis Other)

Solving for the luck factor: leveling access to leadership through an organization-based sponsorship program

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Solving for the Luck Factor:
Leveling Access to Leadership Through an Organization-Based Sponsorship Program
by
Genevieve Joan Graff-Ermeling

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Genevieve Graff-Ermeling 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Genevieve Graff-Ermeling certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Cathy Krop
Ronald Gallimore
Monique Datta, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Lack of diversity at the corporate leadership level, especially in contrast to diversity in the
general workforce, indicates unnoticed talent and stymied career progressions. This qualitative
case-study examined a sponsorship program at a global private-market investment firm to
explore how the organization designed and implemented its sponsorship program to support the
leadership journey for individuals from underrepresented groups. Study participants included
over 50% of the protégés who took part in the program during its first three years, as well as
organizational leaders, an external consultant who participated in design and implementation,
and leaders who served as sponsors. The study explored the program genesis and design (RQ1),
the lived experiences of the protégé (RQ2), and the possibilities for program evolution (RQ3),
utilizing semi-structured interviews with protégés and sponsors, a focus group, and document
analysis. The evidence showed a collaborative and intentional design process that led to a
program that 11 out of 13 protégés’ rated “very beneficial.” Examining influences on protégés’
growth during the program revealed three thematic clusters of experience based on the endpoint
of the year-long journey: summit, timberline, and scenic overlook. The findings also highlighted
programmatic sponsorship’s benefits in mitigating the “luck factor” inherent in organic
sponsorship. Recommendations for continued program evolution included improving
opportunities to network within and between protégé cohorts, increasing sponsors’ modeling
behavior for learning, and increasing protégés’ personal agency to leverage the opportunities for
growth and leadership development.

v
Dedication
To my sister, CPG. Your fierce dedication to create a more inclusive work culture and equitable
leadership pathway inspired this study. Nevertheless, you persisted.

vi
Acknowledgments
Sincere thanks to my dissertation committee who traveled this journey with me: Monique
Datta, my dissertation chair, whose wise support, unbelievably rapid response times, and steady
encouragement to “trust the process” helped me navigate this dissertation vortex and arrive on
the other side; Cathy Krop, whose insightful feedback and questions led to richer descriptions
and a new line of inquiry; and to Ron Gallimore, whose probing questions and generous dialogue
along this research path always expanded my horizons yet kept me rooted in the data and
evidence.
I am grateful to my partner organization and all the individual protégés, sponsors, and
leaders who generously gave their time and shared their experiences to make this study possible.
It is my sincere hope that this research expands the understanding of sponsorship and the
possibilities of an organization-based program for leveling access to leadership.
Thank you to my fellow sojourners the past three years, Cohort 15! You brought learning
to life, and I will treasure the wisdom you shared and the new ways of seeing and listening I
learned from you. A special thanks to my Research Retreat partner, for keeping me motivated
and being a truly rock-solid friend. Fight On!
Heartfelt thanks to my parents, Marilyn and Paul, who let me climb high and take risks.
You continue to cheer me on and always remind me that I am a redeemed child of God. To my
three sisters, all strong, gifted women who give to others and never feel distant, even when I
move half-way around the world. Thank you for your encouragement to explore new paths.
Finally, I am grateful for the unwavering support of my true companion, Brad. You
walked every step with me and never questioned the investment. Your palpable empathy, faithful
prayers, practical advice, and genuine excitement sustained me during this dissertation journey.

vii
Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 6
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ............................................................................................. 10
Lack of Equal Access to Leadership Opportunities .......................................................... 10
The Choice of Sponsorship to Influence the Lack of Diversity at the Leadership Level . 12
Examples of Leveraging Sponsorship for Change ............................................................ 18
How Organizations Equip Individuals to Navigate the Labyrinth .................................... 23
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 36
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 38
Role of Researcher ............................................................................................................ 39
Introduction of Methods ................................................................................................... 40

viii
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 54
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 56
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 57
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 59
RQ1: What factors contributed to the decision to create an internal sponsorship program
and what principles were used in the design of the program? .......................................... 62
Discussion RQ1 ................................................................................................................ 74
RQ2: What is the lived experience of the protégé and how has the sponsorship program
influenced their work and leadership opportunities? ........................................................ 75
Discussion RQ2 .............................................................................................................. 108
RQ3: How can the sponsorship program continue to evolve to increase equity of access to
leadership opportunities? ................................................................................................ 109
Discussion RQ3 .............................................................................................................. 119
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 120
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion ...................................................................... 121
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 121
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 126
Postscript: Actions Underway Based on Study Findings ............................................... 132
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 133
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 134
Implications for Equity and Connection to the Rossier Mission .................................... 136
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 137
References ................................................................................................................................... 139

ix
Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Protégé .............................................................................. 153
Appendix B: Protégé Pre-Interview Questionnaire .................................................................... 156
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Studies .................................................................. 160
Appendix D: Focus Group Interview Protocol ........................................................................... 163
Appendix E: Sponsor Interview Protocol ................................................................................... 166
Appendix F: Document and Artifact Analysis Protocol ............................................................. 168

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Research Questions and Method of Data Collection 39
Table 2: Leadership Team Focus Group Participants 60
Table 3: Protégé Characteristics 61
Table 4: Focus Group’s Identification of Challenges Experienced on
Leadership Path
64
Table 5: Description of the Key Parameters and Features of VE’s Sponsorship
Program
70
Table 6: Categorization of the Protégés’ Achieved Destination in Mountain
Hike Metaphor
77
Table 7: Comparison of Sponsorship Program Goal and Protégé Understanding 80
Table 8: Description and Location of Social Cognitive Theory Elements 83
Table 9: Themes of Initial Meeting Activities 89
Table 10: Tools Acquired for Navigating the Leadership Labyrinth 103
Table 11: Strengths (S) and Improvements (I) in Program Structure and Broader
Organization
110
Table 12: Strengths (S) and Improvements (I) to Program Experience 113
Table 13: Evolutions in VE’s Sponsorship Program 116

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: The Role of Sponsorship in Navigating the
Leadership Labyrinth
36
Figure 2: Design Timeline for Sponsorship Program 69
Figure 3: The McKinsey 7S Model

130

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
In the competitive global market, organizations recognize the need for talent acquisition
and management. Finding talent starts with making it visible, but the lack of diversity at the
leadership level, especially in contrast to the diversity in the general workforce, indicates talent
yet unseen and unnoticed. A report from the Deloitte Global Center for Corporate Governance
(2019), demonstrated the scope of this problem, noting women occupied only 16.9% of seats in
corporate boards worldwide in 2018. Data compiled in 2015 by the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) showed that White men hold 61.3% of the executive positions
despite making up only 33.8% of non-managerial professionals (Gee, 2018). Analysis of EEOC
data from 2016 revealed that while Hispanics represent 17% of the labor force, only 4.3% held
executive positions (Swerzenski, 2020). This same report highlighted that for African Americans
the comparison was 13% to 3.2%, and only Asians were close to parity with 6% in the labor
force and 5.9% in executive roles. The problem of unequal access to leadership opportunities is
important to address as an issue of equity, but also business resource management, since an
optimal use of human capital and personnel depends on a selection process that includes all
available talent (Klettner et al., 2016; Vollmer, 2017).
Several factors contribute to diminishing numbers of women at each level of leadership,
including gender bias in evaluating potential and the withdrawal of valuable mentoring or
sponsorship at a higher rate for women than men (Bono et al., 2017). Various studies focused on
gender, racially underrepresented groups, or intersectionality revealed a number of distinct terms
researchers used to describe factors influencing access to leadership roles: Visibility, Networks,
Development or Mentors, and Line-manager support (Beckwith et al., 2016; Vinkenburg, 2017;
Wyatt & Silvester, 2015). These studies suggest that a deeper exploration of sponsorship, and

2
specifically the shift by influential individuals from “mentor as advisor” to “sponsor as
advocate,” could yield influential findings. Considering the four factors influencing access
mentioned previously, a sponsor who is a supervisor has the potential to exert influence at both
the individual and organizational level. Paddison (2013) detailed the power of one company’s
guided sponsorship program to establish more structured, formal sponsorship and source internal
talent, benefitting not only the individual and the sponsor, but also the growth and success of the
company. An internal program that leverages the organization’s existing leadership acts as a
cost-effective multiplier by equipping leaders to serve as sponsors and model inclusive practices,
while cultivating the untapped potential of the diverse workforce (Jin et al., 2017). The following
study addressed the problem of unequal access to leadership roles and opportunities experienced
by historically underrepresented groups. Specifically, the study focused on one formal
sponsorship program to examine the experiences of the protégés, the design of the program, and
the role managers and leaders play at an organizational level to help increase diversity in the
leadership team.
Context and Background of the Problem
Valiant Equity (VE), a pseudonym, is one example of a company addressing the
disproportionate lack of diversity at the leadership level. VE is an international private market
investment organization founded in the United States during the last 20 years and currently at the
time of the study employed several hundred individuals in countries on five continents. From
2016 to 2021, overall diversity increased 10% and the organization’s population is now over
50% diverse. The percentage of women at the junior and mid-level rose 8% and now accounts
for 40%. Racially underrepresented groups (male and female combined) at the junior and mid-
level experienced a 5% increase to 32%. Leaders describe their commitment to an inclusive and

3
collaborative culture as part of their organization’s DNA. VE publicizes their commitment to
promoting diversity and inclusion in their organization on their public website and contributes to
the online action community of organizations focused on increasing diversity, equity, and
inclusion. Their global leadership team reflects this commitment with several individuals at the
partnership level leading initiatives to improve DEI.
During the second decade of the 21
st
century, VE challenged itself to do more to
influence career advancement for talented individuals in underrepresented groups. The company
launched its sponsorship program near the end of 2018 with seven individual protégé
participating in the 2019 inaugural year. Each year since, they have welcomed a new cohort,
pairing seasoned leaders to serve as sponsors for rising new leaders. Individuals nominated and
selected for the program also receive leadership coaching. The program prioritizes high-potential
employees and focuses on underrepresented groups. Eligibility expanded in the fourth year to
consider anyone for inclusion while maintaining a focus on underrepresented groups. Since the
start of the program in 2019, the percentage of women at the senior level rose from 18% to 24%
and racially underrepresented groups from 11% to 16%. In 2021, individuals from
underrepresent groups earned 60% of promotions to partner and 70% of promotions to managing
director, the top two levels in the organization. The culture of VE values continuous
improvement and agreed to participate in the study with the goal of using the findings to create a
comprehensive picture of the sponsorship program, understand the experiences of the
participants, and guide actions for improvement and refinement as the company enters its fourth
year of implementation.

4
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study examined the sponsorship program at VE, a purposefully selected organization
in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) field
1
, to explore the experiences of
the participants from underrepresented groups and the possible influence on their leadership
career pathways. This research also documented the genesis, design features, and implementation
characteristics of the program. The strategy of inquiry was a single-case methodology. Creswell
and Creswell (2018) described this methodology as an “in-depth analysis of a case, often a
program event, activity, or process” (p. 13). The case study approach aligns with the exploration
of the “activity” of a sponsorship program and its possible influence on the individual’s
leadership journey. The study focused on three primary research questions:
RQ1: What factors contributed to the decision to create an internal sponsorship program
and what principles were used in the design of the program?
RQ2: What is the lived experience of the protégé and how has the sponsorship program
influenced their work and leadership opportunities?
RQ3: How can the sponsorship program continue to evolve to increase equity of access to
leadership opportunities?
Importance of the Study
For many underrepresented groups, finding a pathway to leadership is like navigating a
complex labyrinth of obstacles that repeatedly stymie the rise and advancement into leadership

1
Various aspects of the federal government and university system recognize finance as a STEM field for
official purposes since most graduate level degrees in finance often involve more complicated mathematics. One
example is the finance degree program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which the Department of
Homeland Security has approved as a STEM degree for immigration status. So, while some aspects of finance are
not STEM-related, others are clearly STEM related. For the purposes of this study, the researcher chose to include
VE within this broadly defined category of STEM as this classification was an initial selection filter, not a defining
element of the sponsorship program research.

5
roles (Carli & Eagly, 2016; McDonagh & Paris, 2013; Samuelson et al., 2019; Wyatt &
Silvester, 2015). One important resource for navigating the maze is the opportunity to conduct
research. Lewis and Embrick (2016) recognized the important role academia and research play in
the change process by improving understanding of social issues. In this way, investigating the
specific problem of unequal access to leadership opportunities and roles for underrepresented
groups contributes to the broader research vein and deeper understanding of equity. Various
studies surfaced the role sponsorship may play in an individual’s career journey (Delgado &
Ozuna Allen, 2019; Stewart, 2016; Vollmer, 2017; Wyatt & Silvester, 2015).
Building on this research, Ang (2019) reported that some organizations realized the
potential benefit of sponsors and implemented sponsorship programs. The publication included a
few detailed, anecdotal accounts of sponsorship programs, but there is still a limited descriptive
knowledge base of sponsorship and an insufficient range of fully developed examples to guide
design and research in other contexts. Expanding the knowledge base of empirical case studies
would help shed light on important similarities and differences in program design and outcomes.
A case study provides a rich, detailed account of the lived experiences and program design
principles, related through the careful analysis of emergent themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Focusing on an organization’s sponsorship program as “the case” leads to deeper understanding
of the nuances and potential of this promising but relatively under-explored intervention.
For VE, the findings of the study provide a mirror to reflect how the program is
operating, leading to validating and celebrating effective practices and providing data to inform
future improvements. Spurred on by this research, greater access to leadership roles could also
create a multiplier effect as more diverse leaders leverage their experience and assets to assist
others in navigating the labyrinth. Just like the experience of navigating a maze, an individual

6
who has traveled the path previously serves as a powerful guide. Participants from a study of
African American women community college leaders echoed this sentiment, explaining that
mentors from their own underrepresented cultures were essential because, “they guided them
toward a pathway of success” (Delgado & Ozuna Allen, p. 724).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Social cognitive theory (SCT) notes the triadic reciprocity of environment, behavior, and
person (Bandura, 1986). The theory effectively illuminates the key factors involved in regulating
and changing behavior, areas of interest not only in the behavioral sciences, but in business and
education as well. Key concepts include self-efficacy, modeling, agency, and the significant role
cognitive processes play in what is learned.
Examining the complex human interactions at play in the selection of leaders lends
itself to SCT. Researchers employed SCT in various studies of human-learning and behavioral
modification, including supervisors’ bullying effect on employee creativity (Jiang et al., 2019)
and goal setting or self-efficacy as they contribute to behavioral change (Morgan et al., 2014; Ng
& Lucianetti, 2016). Tuck and Yang (2014) noted in their writings about youth resistance
research that, “A theory of change refers to a belief or perspective about how a situation can be
adjusted, corrected, or improved” (p.13). The theory of change for this study relied on the agency
of the individual acting in community through deliberate actions of sponsorship. The theory also
assumed that if sponsors provide assistance equitably, then an individual’s capacity to grow into
a leadership role becomes the determining factor.
The research employed a qualitative case study design and bounded-system investigation
to report a rich case description of an organization’s sponsorship program (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The design aligned well with exploring human behavior on a deeper level while searching

7
for evidence of effects with sponsorship program participants across the organization. The
multiple influences noted in SCT warrant in-depth exploration to understand the effects of each
SCT element on the individual’s leadership journey. Delgado and Ozuna Allen (2019) employed
this case-study methodology in the exploration of how women of color navigate the leadership
pipeline in community college.
The case design began with the selection of the sponsorship program case and used
document analysis to refine the interview questions and pre-interview questionnaire for program
participants. Both the questionnaire responses and SCT elements guided the choice of factors,
topics, and experiences that warranted further investigation during the interviews (Anfara &
Mertz, 2015). In addition to document analysis and protégé interviews, data collection included a
focus group with sponsorship program leaders and sponsor interviews to collect, analyze, and
combine multiple sources of data for the rich case description. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
recommend analyzing multiple data points and triangulating findings to increase the credibility
of the study, and the use of questionnaire and interviews helped strengthen internal validity from
the participants’ perspective.
Definitions
The following section includes key terms found in the study paired with working
definitions to provide additional clarity to the reader.
Agency
Having the power and capability to produce an effect or exert influence (APA Dictionary
of Psychology, 2007). This refers to an individual’s agency in SCT.
Intersectionality

8
Framework for understanding how an individual’s different identities (social, racial,
gender, political) combine to create different experiences of discrimination and privilege
beyond a single-identity. Introduced by Crenshaw (1989) to articulate the experiences of
Black women.
Leadership Labyrinth
Eagly and Carli (2007) used the metaphor of a labyrinth to describe the career pathway,
illuminating various challenges and decision points that an individual negotiates
throughout a leadership journey.
Line Manager/Supervisor
For purposes of this study, the term line manager and supervisor will be use
synonymously when referring to individuals with direct oversight and responsibility for
another person or activity.
Modeling
The process in which one or more individuals or other entities serve as examples
(models) that a child will emulate. Models are often parents, other adults, or other
children, but they may also be symbolic (e.g., a book or television character) (APA
Dictionary of Psychology, 2007). Modeling is applicable to adult learning as well.
Self-Efficacy
“People's sense of personal efficacy to produce and to regulate events in their lives…how
well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations”
(Bandura, 1982, p. 122).
Sponsor

9
Influential individuals who are inclined to open the doors of opportunity for their
protégés (Singh & Vanka, 2020). Sponsors are distinct from “mentors.” Mentors advise
while sponsors advocate.
Visibility
The state of being seen by senior decision-makers, including being seen in a high profile
leadership role or assignment (Wyatt & Silvester, 2015).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study includes five chapters, with Chapter One introducing the problem, the context
of the study, and the theoretical framework employed to guide the investigation. A review of the
literature follows in Chapter Two, detailing previous findings and important ideas that shaped the
selection of methodology. It also includes the development of the key metaphor of navigating the
Leadership Labyrinth to describe the journey to executive leadership. Chapter Three describes
the study methodology, including the selection of the organization and participants, as well as
methods for data collection and analysis. Chapter Four follows with analysis of the data and
findings. The study concludes in Chapter Five with a discussion of recommendations for VE’s
sponsorship program as well as ideas for subsequent research.

10
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
The following literature review examines the complex factors that inhibit leadership
progression and the ways and means individuals employ to overcome barriers on the leadership
path. The chapter beings with an overview of structural and cultural factors that exacerbate the
lack of access to leadership opportunities for underrepresented groups. These elements also
appear woven throughout chapter. Next, the review illuminates the choice of sponsorship as a
promising mechanism for increasing diversity at the leadership level, introducing the metaphor
of the labyrinth and the specific resources required for undertaking a leadership journey. Third,
examples of leveraging sponsorship for change, formal and informal, provide context for key
practices and interactions that elevate sponsorship beyond mentorship. An exploration of how
organizations might equip individuals to navigate the labyrinth follows, including how social
cognitive theory developed by Bandura (1986) might serve as a model for influencing
sponsorship program design. The chapter concludes with a conceptual framework that utilizes
social cognitive theory as a mechanism for expanding tools and accessing experiences to
successfully traverse the route to leadership.
Lack of Equal Access to Leadership Opportunities
The call continues for more diversity at the leadership level, yet the most recent US
employment data shows little positive momentum in the decade between 2008 and 2018. EEOC
data disaggregated by the financial and insurance industry category showed a 6% increase
across all people of color (POC) at the professional level, reaching 31% in 2018. The
executive/senior leadership level experienced a 3.5% increase for POC and account for only 14%
of individuals in the top leadership roles (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
2008, 2018). Black or African American individuals only accounted for .3% of the increase at

11
the professional level and experienced a decrease of .2% at the executive senior leadership level.
The same comparison of EEOC reports revealed a less than 1% change in gender representation
over the decade. Women still occupy only 31% of the senior/executive level seats despite
accounting for over 50% of employees at the professional level. Various structural and cultural
influences continue to complicate pathways and perpetuate unequal access to leadership
opportunities for underrepresented groups.
In their study of developmental networks, Chanland and Murphy (2018) detailed the
obstacles to leadership opportunities created by homophily, social attraction to those similar to
us, and gender and racial homogeny found at the leadership level. Both elements constrain access
to professional networks for underrepresented groups. Research exploring occupational
segregation in financial planning in Australia investigated the concept of gender capital--that
certain behaviors or traits are associated with one gender--which may limit female’s access to
leadership roles primarily associated with masculine behaviors (O'Dwyer & Richards, 2021).
The study analyzed participants association of “confidence” with gender and nearly 60%
described it as a masculine trait. One female interview participant shared, “You do have to be
confident…women and men differ in that aspect, so you need to be a little bit more pushy…I
definitely think that makes it hard” (p. 6). Managers may also experience micro-political activity
such as a subordinate withholding information when briefing a manager for a meeting or raising
an issue for the first time in front of a mid-level leader’s boss rather than privately bringing it to
the manager ahead of time (Coleman, 2020). Finally, underrepresented groups often experience a
longer promotion journey, needing to prove themselves capable for an elevated role prior to
advancement, whereas white men are often promoted based on assumed capacity (Thomas &
Gabarro, 1999 as cited in Caver & Livers, 2021, p. 21).

12
The Choice of Sponsorship to Influence the Lack of Diversity at the Leadership Level
Much like an experienced guide provides tips for navigating a pathway, sponsorship
opens doors to key opportunities and provides critical access otherwise unavailable to
underrepresented groups. When compared to White men, the lack of leadership advancement
opportunities for underrepresented groups begins early in their career trajectory due to unequal
access to informal relationships and valuable information acquired from those relationships
(Vollmer, 2017). One sponsorship study participant noted this lack of access when describing the
informal relationships afforded to other white members of the organization, “They play golf
together…one takes an interest in the other. They believe they are talented and they help”
(Catalyst, 2011, p. 6). As Delgado and Ozuna Allen (2019) reported, these informal relationships
perform several enabling functions. Study participants described the importance of a having a
network of colleagues who served as role models, cultural translators, and cultural mediators.
Access to informal relationships makes these connections possible, but access is not the only
challenge. The choice of how to use different strategies and tactics while progressing down a
career path may also differ between genders (Ang, 2019; Laud & Johnson, 2013; Levine et al.,
2021). In addition, different interpretations of behaviors, based on whether an individual is a
White male or a member of an underrepresented group, create yet another obstacle on the
leadership path (Cohen et al., 2020; Nash & Moore, 2019; Schlamp et al., 2020).
Understanding what interventions might help overcome these barriers requires a careful
analysis of the leadership journey and its inherent complications. Simple metaphors like the glass
ceiling or sticky floor do not adequately capture the complexity of the situation (Carli & Eagly,
2016). This section describes the metaphor of a labyrinth as a more illustrative analogy for
explaining these complexities and the resources required for navigating the leadership journey.

13
The origins and characteristics of the metaphor are presented first, followed by the various tools
found to be helpful in navigating the maze. Many of these tools point to the importance of having
sponsors for aspiring leaders as a promising mechanism for change.
Leadership Labyrinth Versus the Glass Ceiling
Two important metaphors illustrate the obstacles encountered by underrepresented
groups in their pursuit of leadership roles. The glass ceiling, coined by the Wall Street Journal in
1986, describes an “invisible and impenetrable barrier” (U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995,
p. iii) preventing women from reaching the highest levels of leadership regardless of their
qualifications. Research still employs this metaphor to describe a barrier of advancement for
women and other underrepresented groups (Orbach, 2017; Rathi, 2018). However, a decade
earlier, Eagly and Carli (2007) used the metaphor of a labyrinth to replace a glass ceiling to
describe the career pathway of women towards leadership opportunities and roles. The authors
articulated seven reasons why the glass ceiling metaphor did not fully capture the life experience
of rising leaders including the following: it misrepresents the complex and diverse obstacles to
leadership; it implies unseen barriers when, in fact, some are quite visible; and it discounts the
role thoughtful problem-solving plays in navigating a path towards leadership (Eagly & Carli). A
later study expanded this metaphor to include other underrepresented professionals (Wyatt &
Silvester, 2015). The research reveals multiple barriers and choices an individual negotiates
throughout a career and the role perspective plays in navigating a labyrinth. Thus, this study
employs the less-used but more descriptive labyrinth metaphor to examine the various factors
that may contribute to unequal access to leadership roles. When faced with a labyrinth, an
individual benefits from helpful resources for navigating the space detailed in the next section.
Promising Tools for Navigating the Labyrinth

14
A review of the literature revealed numerous terms to describe the different factors
influencing access to leadership roles. Wyatt and Silvester (2015) employed semi-structured
interviews with 20 White senior managers and 20 senior managers from racially
underrepresented groups of a civil-service organization to investigate sense-making around
career progressions. They detailed four themes of coding categories that emerged while creating
templates for analysis: Visibility, Networks, Development, and Line-manager support. These
categories organize well the resources available to help individuals navigate the labyrinth to
leadership. Another study examining survey results from 1,735 African-American women
mirrored three out of the four categories: high visibility assignments, informal networks with
influential colleagues, and the influential role of sponsors or mentors (Beckwith et al., 2016).
The section that follows includes a more detailed explanation of these key navigation resources
as described in the literature.
Visibility
A well-known phrase, “get in the game” helps explain the role visibility plays in
affording opportunities for leadership advancement. Women and other underrepresented groups
often experience limited access to “the game.” They typically do not enjoy the same chances of
earning a promotion as their White, male colleagues as they have less information about the
strategies and tactics required to succeed (Vollmer, 2017). The valuable work of many talented
professionals’ remains largely invisible if only a small audience sees it. High profile assignments
garner the attention of senior leadership, and if executed well, bring recognition (Wyatt &
Silvester, 2015). An undercurrent of scarcity occurs in some professions such that those who
garner early visibility receive more interesting work, meaningful training, and supportive
mentors (Tomlinson et al., 2013).

15
Several studies also described the double-edge sword of visibility. Individuals from
underrepresented groups not only had to overcome invisibility to be considered for roles, but
then also endured hyper-visibility once they held a leadership position (Cirincione-Ulezi, 2020;
Nash & Moore, 2019). Wyatt and Silvester (2015) found that managers from underrepresented
groups expressed concern over visibility, hesitating to raise their head above the crowd to avoid
outsized negative consequences of failure. Visibility brings opportunities to rise or fall, but few
leaders gain access to advancement without some platform for exposure and being noticed by
senior decision-makers. Since this visibility is often a critical entry point in the labyrinth, several
of the other navigation resources serve as important enablers for increasing visibility.
Networks
Networks describe another category of resources that individuals use to locate
opportunities and chart a course toward a leadership role. Both formal and informal networks
exert influence on career pathways, with the informal networks often demonstrating more bias
over who joins the club (Rink et al., 2019). Interviews with female top executives showed a more
extensive use of networking strategies compared to men, indicating the importance of utilizing
networks to advance (Laud & Johnson, 2013). Beckwith et al. (2016) identify informal networks
as one of the four primary obstacles to advancement faced by African American women. Arab-
Bedouin women provide another example of intersectionality negatively impacting networking
opportunities, experiencing exclusion from the professional group due to their gender and
ethnicity (Abu-Rabia-Queder, 2017).
Other research shows that intersectionality may not always limit networks and obstruct
advancement if the right conditions exist. Examining the experience of Women of Color,
Delgado and Ozuna Allen (2019) noted that women who successfully reached leadership roles

16
credited their extensive mentoring network which included role models, cultural translators, and
cultural mediators. Individuals from underrepresented cultures filled the position of role model,
showing how to act and respond in the professional setting. Cultural translators shared a common
culture with the mentee and provided inspiration to stay optimistic as well as advise about how to
manage a bicultural world of home culture and mainstream culture. Cultural mediators included
individuals from the mainstream group who hired or promoted a person of color and appreciated
the strengths of the minority culture (Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019).
Development and Mentorship
A third category which serves to organize resources for navigating the labyrinth is
development. Mainstream development courses and programs serve to open doors, sometimes
leading to shortcuts in the advancement to leadership roles (Wyatt & Silvester, 2015). However,
researchers found that while access to the programs was challenging for all races, only
underrepresented groups were specifically channeled towards paths of less prestigious courses
focused specifically on issues for underrepresented individuals. King et al. (2012) discovered
that women and men showed equal interest in taking on challenging tasks, but men who held a
paternalistic worldview were less likely to assign the challenging task to a woman. Researchers
also underscore the value of need-specific development opportunities, such as training for
managers to better navigate change, or leadership training for a specific underrepresented group
that holds cache with the community the organization serves (Quinn et al., 2020; Schultz et al.,
2019).
Beyond programs or professional learning opportunities, this category also includes
formal and informal mentorship. Levels of mentorship influenced access to board appointments
for directors, with underrepresented groups receiving less appointments despite having better

17
qualifications (McDonald & Westphal, 2013). In a qualitative study with female leaders from
underrepresented groups, reflections during interviews surfaced the important role mentors
played in career progressions through advice and support in areas such as office politics and
gender issues (Farrow, 2008). However, untrained mentors or those influenced by unexamined
mindsets or lacking proper direction, negatively affect career advancement (Orbach, 2017; Quinn
et al., 2020). Often seen as similar but subtly different, mentors provide advice and foster
development, but sponsors advocate and promote. Most significantly, supervisors or sponsors
wield influence in opening access to leadership opportunities.
Sponsorship or Supervisor Support
Numerous studies describe the role of sponsors and the concept of sponsorship when
examining leadership journeys in various professions (Bono et al., 2017; Farrow, 2008; Rink et
al., 2019). Differing from the role of a mentor, a sponsor seeks to promote a protégé among other
senior professionals and willingly spends political capital to do so. This approach proves more
valuable than a traditional mentorship role. (Paddison, 2013; Vollmer, 2017). One study
examined the effect of social resources in the workplace and found that career sponsorship
offered the greatest benefit (Seibert et al., 2001). Huston et al. (2019) recommended sponsorship
to navigate the barriers limiting access to leadership in academia for women and marginalized
groups in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) fields.
Sponsorship can also improve visibility for the protégé, leading to more opportunities in the
future (Catalyst, 2011). A supervisor who is supportive of career development enhances visibility
and access to key role assignments (Choi, 2019). Conversely, when neglected by powerful
sponsors, both visibility and skill development suffer for underrepresented groups (Tomlinson et
al., 2013).

18
In addition to visibility and access, Kempster (2009) described the influence of
observational learning on a manager’s understanding of leadership, revealing the pivotal function
that observation of a positive role model plays in the success of an emerging leader. Supervisors
who serve as sponsors create many opportunities for this observational learning. Perhaps most
significant, supervisors perform the critical role of gate-keeper, possessing the power to formally
evaluate and promote those they supervise (Vinkenburg, 2017). If a sponsor exerts significant
influence in the organization, they are able to clear a path for their protégé to follow (Stewart,
2016). Navigating a physical labyrinth requires learning patterns and using the tools at hand.
Similarly, navigating the career labyrinth requires employing the resources of visibility,
networks, development, and sponsor/supervisor support to gain access to leadership roles and
opportunities for underrepresented groups.
Examples of Leveraging Sponsorship for Change
A ripple effect emanating from sponsorship influences visibility, networks, development,
and advancement opportunities. Sponsorship exists within organizations and beyond the
boundaries of organizations (Ang, 2019). Formal sponsorship programs managed by a human
resources department can ensure sponsorship is available for young leaders from
underrepresented groups (Chanland & Murphy, 2018). The following section explores the
experiences of protégés in formal and informal sponsorship relationships, as well as various
sponsorship programs instituted by corporations, government agencies, and other organizations
to catalyze change. The section concludes with a few specific reports and white papers on
program outcomes, revealing a key shortcoming in the existing research literature - the limited
empirical knowledge base of program results and descriptive case studies.
Sponsorship Experiences of Individuals from Underrepresented Groups

19
As articulated earlier, the concept of sponsorship moves beyond that of a mentor who
conveys advice to that of a sponsor operating as advocate. Ibarra et al. (2010) found
discrepancies in the experiences of men and women; men described actions of sponsorship
whereas the women often described actions of mentorship. In contrast to men, women reported
fewer “endorsements” or advocacy from their supervisors and often had to fight to be considered
for a role. Hewlett et al. (2010) notes that sponsorship involves a risk by the sponsor, putting
one’s name and reputation “on the line” for a protégé. Sponsorship has been linked to facilitating
the progress of women in leadership, yet supervisor’s perceptions regarding future potential
derailment of a women’s career are associated with the intention to withdraw sponsorship (Bono
et al., 2017). In a recent follow-up publication, Hewlett (2019) explored and documented the
benefits incurred by sponsors who willingly take this reputational risk, which could mitigate the
hesitancy to continue sponsorship. As individuals progress to the highest levels of an
organization, sponsorship plays a more critical role in the effect on leadership opportunities. One
participant stated, “Once you start progressing…that pyramid has shrunk in terms of the number
of jobs, and you have to have people who are advocating for you on your behalf to be one of
the…possible candidates for the job” (Catalyst, 2011, p. 6).
Research describes participant experiences in both formal and informal sponsorship
programs. However, a lack of studies on formal programs limits the review of experiences of
protégés. Preferences for informal vs. formal sponsorship or mentoring programs emerged in the
few studies reviewed, supported by participant interview comments (Farrow, 2008) and
statistically significant higher scores across five key mentoring functions (Cline, 2018). Results
from an earlier study that reviewed 12 formal mentoring programs across oil, technology, health
care and manufacturing emphasized the importance of participant choice in the pairing decisions.

20
Findings showed that input in the matching process by both protégé and sponsor was a key factor
in distinguishing effective mentoring practice for formal programs (Allen et al., 2006).
A majority of sponsorship experiences relayed in the research fall under the category of
organic sponsorship experiences, where a supervisor or influential other acts an advocate for a
junior employee or early career professional outside a formal program. Choi (2019) found that
both women and men benefitted from supervisors who were supportive, spending social capital
to garner high visibility assignments for protégés. However, women were even more likely to
benefit since females who secured a supportive senior person in the organization, obtained more
positive career outcomes compared to men.
Professional isolation, created by differing race, gender, or the intersectionality of both
can inhibit the building of relationships that lead to sponsorship (Cirincione-Ulezi, 2020). One
female protégé shared “Women are severely disadvantaged… because a lot of
sponsorships…come out of just relationships…But a lot of time, men just have those
relationships, right? They’re buddies with someone” (Catalyst, 2011, p. 6). Cross-race
sponsorships also face identity-relevant challenges due to possible divergent experiences, goals,
and backgrounds, yet White sponsors may have access to networks and resources critical to the
advancement of underrepresented groups (Randel et al., 2021). The importance of cross-race or
gender sponsorship coupled with the hurdles of creating these relationships organically cautions
against relying on organic sponsorship alone to increase diversity at the leadership level.
Sponsorship Programs Instituted to Catalyze Change
Over the past decade, various corporations and government programs began to see
promise in formal sponsorship opportunities as means to expand diversity at the leadership level.
Some prominent corporate programs include American Express, Cisco Systems, Deutsch Bank,

21
and Citibank (Ang, 2019). An Accenture report highlighted examples and insights from
programs at Intel in the United States and Edwards, a semiconductor company in the UK
(Accenture, 2020). In another report, intra-industry groups created a year-long sponsorship
program to guide individuals from a VP position to the C-Suite (Paddison, 2013). Beyond the
corporate sector, a few governmental agencies have also created programs that include
sponsorship features. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services designed a fellowship
program with the goal of increasing the number of men of color in leadership at HIV service
organizations (Quinn et al., 2020).
Formal and informal networks as resources for navigating the leadership labyrinth
present themselves in varying degrees based on the size and density of connections across an
organization. Leaders from underrepresented groups may need a larger network because
connections may not be as strong with cross-gender or cross-race interactions (Chanland &
Murphy, 2018). In the medical field, the popular phrase of “See one, do one, teach one” (p.
1194) describes the training of surgeons during their residency (Kotsis & Chung, 2013). An
adaption of the phrase to address the lack of access to leadership opportunities and roles for
underrepresented groups could be “See one, be one, sponsor one.” Since there is still a lack of
role models from underrepresented groups in leadership, Chanland and Murphy suggest an
organization-based sponsorship program pairing White male sponsors with diverse protégés to
kick-start the cycle of change and ultimately accelerate the change as a more diverse cohort of
individuals hold positions of leadership or key connections in a network. With the growing
number of organizations that have instituted sponsorship programs, some initial evidence is also
emerging of promising sponsorship outcomes.
Outcomes of Sponsorship Programs

22
Many nonprofit or professional service companies that provide consulting and research
have documented findings and outcomes of sponsorship programs. These self-published white
papers and reports currently outstrip the number of empirical studies and peer-reviewed journal
articles on sponsorship programs. In one rare example, a peer-reviewed formative evaluation
study found the program improved leadership readiness for fellows who demonstrated an
increased sense of belonging, with one emphasizing, “[The Fellowship taught us to] demand
your seat at the table...and this is how you do it in a nice, political, friendly way” (p. 844) even
though preceptors (sponsors) did not perceive fellows as ready for management (Quinn et al.,
2020). The study also noted a need for training sponsors how to address systemic racism and
discrimination, and how to enact structural changes that provide advancement opportunities
without a formal degree.
In the non-peer reviewed studies, one company profiled in the Accenture (2020) report
measured as gender-neutral in a university study. The company credited all-inclusive practices
such as instilling basic values and readily calling out unconscious bias or behaviors that violate
company values. A report from a different company included a case write-up that outlined
expectations embedded within their people development goals, asking every partner to explicitly
sponsor individuals from underrepresented groups (PricewaterhouseCoopers International,
2016). Another project, included in the same report, found 45 alumni reached the partner level
after participating in a program that combined sponsorship with leadership development. These
outcomes demonstrate how organizations could leverage sponsorship to influence who navigates
the leadership journey to the executive level. The following section provides details of how to
use sponsorship effectively.

23
How Organizations Equip Individuals to Navigate the Labyrinth
The one-on-one relationship of sponsor and protégé, especially in the context of a
supervisor, calls to mind the reciprocal line of support suggested by Elmore (2000),
If the formal authority of my role requires that I hold you accountable for some action or
outcome, then I have an equal and complementary responsibility to assure that you have
the capacity to do what I am asking you to do (p. 19).
While Elmore situates this support in the area of accountability, the mindset of assistance
transfers to the concept of sponsorship across the organization. Executive-level individuals
sponsor managers during their journey by modeling sponsorship, specifically how to allocate
opportunities to underrepresented groups and the type of support a sponsor should provide.
Managers benefit from learning to mitigate bias towards any group and gain insights for how to
foster growth in others. Employees beginning the leadership journey benefit from the bright
spotlight on intentional sponsorship, gaining confidence from the organization’s commitment to
increasing diversity at leadership levels and receiving organizational cover for mixed-gender
pairings. Organizations can make a difference in the individual leadership journey by focusing
on interactions between the work environment, the behaviors modeled and bias mitigated, and
the individual’s own reflection and cognition.
Environment of the Organization
Organizations possess the power to influence employee work environment on the
leadership pathway. Decades ago, Wood and Bandura (1989) investigated the effects on
managers’ self-efficacy in an organizational environment that was difficult to predict or control
versus a predictable and controllable environment. The study reported managers set lower
performance goals and found these goals more challenging to achieve amidst less predictable and

24
controllable environmental conditions. Influence on a leader’s self-efficacy is just one example
of how environment affects the individual leader. In the context of sponsorship initiatives,
organizations shape and influence not only the overall cultural environment, but also the specific
environmental conditions. Organizations design both the sponsorship program structure and the
supervisor training to empower and build leadership capacity with underrepresented groups. The
next section explores how the culture, program structure, and supervisor training influences the
access to leadership roles for underrepresented groups.
Culture of the Organization
Culture creates an environment hostile, indifferent, or supportive of diverse viewpoints,
leadership approaches, and a sense of belonging. Organizational culture is complex and consists
of visible artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein &
Schein, 2017). The authors indicated that influencing culture requires exploring and
understanding underlying assumptions, the DNA of the organization. Dzubinski et al. (2019)
presented an environmental effect model to describe how the self-conduct of female leaders
interacts with leadership culture, influencing outcomes. The leadership culture of male-normed
contexts required women to constrain their behaviors to remain in leadership. However, gender-
diverse normed contexts freed women to act in ways congruent with their authentic self.
Organizational culture that values leadership traits such as overconfidence and
assertiveness, stereotypical male traits, leads to associating men with competency in STEMM
leadership (Nash & Moore, 2019). The burden on women, and to an even greater degree women
of color, to maintain a belief in belonging increases when organizational culture favors and
rewards stereotypically masculine and hegemonic behaviors. Males from underrepresented
groups who may not fit these stereotypes may also experience a similar burden and barrier, with

25
one study participant reflecting that to create change, supervisors all the way up to executive
directors need HR training to address organizational hurdles to leadership created by deeply
rooted patterns of cultural bias (Quinn et al., 2020). Organizations that value relational learning,
collaboration, vulnerability, employee development, and consistent feedback create a culture
more conducive to diverse leadership growth opportunities (Chanland & Murphy, 2018). A
supportive organizational culture provides the foundation and guidelines to build a well-
structured sponsorship program.
Structure of the Sponsorship Program
In additional to culture, the structure of a sponsorship program provides another way for
an organization to target the environmental influence on leadership growth. Women are less
likely to self-promote which leads to missed recognition for their achievements, diminishing the
reputation that garners the attention of mentors (Athanasopoulou et al., 2018). By providing a
guided program rather than relying on informal sponsorship, an organization assists the
individual with obtaining a sponsor, a task shown to be more challenging for individuals from
underrepresented groups (Paddison, 2013). A well-structured program begins with clear goals
specifically aligned to the type of program, mentorship or sponsorship, since expectations and
behaviors differ between the two roles (Ibarra et al., 2010).
Multiple studies advise to give careful consideration to the selection and pairing of
sponsors and protégés, with an application or nomination process that may include references
and assessments for participants prior to matching (Ang, 2019; Huston et al., 2019; Paddison). A
nomination process signals to the individual that the organizations sees potential, which may
help counteract one’s hesitancy to pursue leadership roles when few existing members of
leadership match the individual’s racial, sexual, or gender identity (Cirincione-Ulezi, 2020). Key

26
features mentioned in the design of many programs include kick-off events, the use of
developmental/growth plans, sponsor training, the expectation of assigning the protégé to roles
or projects that improve visibility or skill set, providing candid feedback, and ensuring access to
networks typically inaccessible to the protégés (Ang; Huston et al.; Paddison; Randel et al.,
2021). Intentional design of the structure of a sponsorship program improves the chances that
participants will experience the rich benefits of sponsorship. Ensuring individuals are equipped
to serve as sponsors strengthens the implementation of the design.
Training for Sponsors
One program feature that seems of special importance is providing training for the
sponsor. Successful training programs require leadership commitment and careful development
of program content (Salas et al., 2012). Gandhi and Johnson (2016) described workshop training
built on principles of Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) for middle and high-level
researchers who served as mentors to early career scholars. The workshops included sessions on
unconscious bias, microaggressions, and diversity components. Additionally, Vinkenburg (2017)
detailed the different levels of training on bias, including bias literacy, participatory modeling,
and participant observations. These sponsorship training designs align with recommendations for
specific training content from Quinn et al. (2020), Cirincione-Ulezi (2020) and Schlamp et al.
(2020).
Cornish and Morgan (2017) developed a sponsor toolkit that details important
perspectives required of sponsors for effective role execution. These include the following:
understanding the role of the sponsor; understanding matters related to race, culture, and
inclusion; understanding differing career trajectories for underrepresented groups and the
implications for role models and career capital; understanding protégés’ avoidance of high

27
visible projects or use of political tools; and the importance of career planning. Training for
sponsors, combined with sponsorship program structure and overall organizational culture create
the environmental conditions that influence the leadership journey for an employee. Another key
area of influence on the individual is the behavior of the sponsor.
Behavior of Sponsor
Enlightened organizations recognize that supervisors’ behaviors and bias, often
unconscious, may affect the work life and professional advancement opportunities of rising
leaders. Building on a previous study, Kempster and Parry (2014) explored the concept of
observational learning and proposed a model which outlined several key stages of career
progression and the corresponding context of observational learning. The authors use the term
leader becoming as a noun to represent an individual’s journey and rise to leadership. Pre-career,
individuals acquired a generic understanding of leadership from family and educators. Early-
career and mid-career observations of immediate supervisors led to constructing and shaping
leader becoming. Finally, later career observations led to individual reflection, which affirmed
the relevance of the learning process to the journey of becoming a leader. Significant to the
model’s development is the work of Bandura (1986) as cited in Kempster and Parry,
“observation has significant power in influencing others ‘values, attitudes, and patterns of
thought and behavior’ that is able to be contextualized to shape leadership practice to ‘suit
different purposes and circumstances,’” (p. 169). Formal and informal sponsor behaviors,
context-specific leadership behaviors, and behaviors shaped by implicit bias can all affect the
protégé’s leadership growth and career trajectory.
Formal and Informal Sponsorship Behaviors

28
Both formal and informal sponsorship behaviors exert influence on the protégé’s
leadership development and journey. Expected formal behaviors from the sponsor include
creating roles and projects, intentionally sharing and building networks, advocating for the
protégé within the organization, facilitating connections to senior leaders, and providing candid
feedback (Huston et al., 2019). A mentor acting as sponsor includes the protégé in current work
projects that increase visibility and exposure to influential leaders and further shape the protégé’s
growth (Brashear-Alejandro et al., 2019). This inclusion also allows for increased levels of
interaction, providing opportunities for more extensive role-modeling. Sponsors also help
protégés plan for the future through formal assistance with career planning (Cornish & Morgan,
2017).
Informal sponsor behaviors may be direct or indirect. Consider the indirect behavior of a
sponsor endorsing potential simply by electing to sponsor the protégé. Being chosen enhances
professional reputation and can opens doors to competitive leadership programs or heightened
status in a specialist field (Ang, 2019). Direct behaviors can include serving as a cultural
translator for a protégé from a similar racial background or gender, or as a cultural mediator, if
the sponsor is a White male, by showing appreciation for the strengths of the protégé’s cultural
background (Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019). Other direct sponsor behaviors include public
recognition of achievements or support for difficult or unpopular decisions (Magrane et al.,
2018). On a more personal level, sponsors can also engage directly by sharing their own
leadership stories and comparing leadership journeys with the protégé (Cornish & Morgan,
2017). The many sponsorship behaviors enacted with or for a protégé provide one way a
sponsor’s behavior influences the leadership opportunities for a protégé. Opportunities to

29
observe the sponsor’s behavior in general provide another example of how behavior influences
growth.
Context-Specific Leadership Behaviors
Observation of a sponsor provides opportunities for a protégé to see effective leadership
behaviors enacted and the subsequent impact of those effective behaviors. The sponsor’s actions,
performed in the day-to-day functions of the role, provide rich opportunities for learning through
observation which is a prominent component of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory.
Humans learn not only from doing but also from watching behavior modeled by others. For
example, observing a sponsor frame problems to engender listening and curiosity versus
defensiveness provides a model for how to bring about collective change (Cornish & Morgan,
2017). Dahlvig and Longman (2010) offer another example describing an instance when one
introverted protégé observed a female mentor with similar personality (introversion) traits lead a
group of men, and how the experience transformed the protégé’s perception of leadership as an
attainable goal (Dahlvig & Longman, 2010). Sponsors inviting protégés to meetings or
networking events opens “closed” doors, allowing the protégé to learn while observing the
sponsor in action.
Modeling also influences norms, attitudes, and values of an individual or group (Bandura,
1986). Grant and Patil (2012) provided a conceptual framework built on Bandura’s theory
detailing a sequence of actions for changing a group norm to be more helpful and caring. The
threefold sequence included a microprocess of inquiry about the behavior, modeling the new
behavior, and advocacy to change the behavior. Randel et al. (2021) then applied this framework
to illuminate how a sponsor might create conditions of greater inclusion by using inquiry,
modeling, and advocacy. By speaking up when discriminatory language is used, challenging

30
racial stereotypes, or acting as an ally when individuals from underrepresented groups
experience microaggressions, the sponsor publicly disrupts organizational norms in clear view of
the protégé. Behaviors observed in context serve to shape leadership journeys. Unintentional and
unconscious behaviors of a sponsor also assist or inhibit that journey.
Unintentional and Unconscious Behaviors
While overt bias and discrimination still exist, a more powerful actor lurks below the
surface in the form of implicitly motivated behaviors. Greenwald and Banaji (1995) defined
implicit stereotypes as, “introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past
experience that mediate attributions of qualities to members of a social category” (p. 15). The
ability to categorize stimuli based on past experiences is an asset in a stimuli-rich world, yet also
creates conditions for implicit bias. When bias intrudes during a decision-making process, such
as in personnel evaluations, altered judgement creates unintentional discrimination (Greenwald
& Banaji). In one study, supervisors who judged the potential of an employee’s future
progression were more likely to withdraw career support from a women than a man when the
leadership journey ran off track (Bono et al., 2017). The study found a small effect of gender bias
associated with percentages of derailment. However, when applying the formula to model this
seemingly small effect in a large organization with an equal gender-split across 500 managers,
100 men and only 57 women stayed on the leadership path. In addition to withdrawal of support
for emerging female leaders, Hayes et al. (2020) reported that decision-makers’ unconscious
biases can disproportionately reduce leadership promotions for underrepresented groups.
Implicit bias can also manifest through a preference for the similar or familiar, a
phenomenon Psychologists call affinity bias. Block et al. (2017) noted the influence gender-bias
exerts during performance evaluations and decisions for promotions, resulting in a subtle

31
favoritism (affinity) by White men towards White men rather than blatant discrimination against
another gender or ethnic group. In one study of 311 leaders from the Dutch financial and
healthcare ministries, researchers found male leaders rated a follower’s successor potential
negatively in the absence of strong interpersonal fit, whereas female leaders’ follower ratings
remained stable regardless of interpersonal fit (Rink et al., 2019). Industry reports showed that
71% of sponsors share the same gender or race with their protégés (Center for Talent Innovation,
2019).
Another form of unconscious or unintentional behavior is microaggressions which are
subtle comments or actions which express a prejudiced attitude toward a marginalized group
(Merriam-Webster., (n.d)). Microaggressions experienced repeatedly over time may lead to a
reluctance to pursue leadership opportunities (Cirincione-Ulezi, 2020). Quinn et al. (2020)
suggested intentional training around implicit bias and microaggressions for leadership and
sponsors. Supervisors equipped with a better understanding of how microaggressions affect
underrepresented groups’ courage to solicit sponsorship, could proactively initiate an offer of
sponsorship rather than passively wait for a request (Cirincione-Ulezi). With increased
awareness of these subconscious patterns of exclusion, supervisors might learn to look beyond
interpersonal, gender, or racial differences when making decisions about promotion and
advancement. The sponsor’s behavior exerts crucial influence on the leadership journey of a
protégé and also fosters a positive perspective of learning and growth in the protégé.
Individual Learning or Growth
In addition to addressing environmental conditions and sponsor behaviors, organizations
can also influence the leadership journey of underrepresented groups by focusing on individual
growth through cognition and reflection. Employees who show a capacity for improving and

32
monitoring their own learning are valued by the organization (Lyons & Bandura, 2019). One
suggested growth activity a sponsor can lead is called a life-line narrative where the protégé
reflects on significant career events as a sense-making exercise to inform future career decisions
(Cornish & Morgan, 2017). Another example noted earlier, observational learning, can also play
an important role in individual leadership development. (Kempster & Parry, 2014). However,
two individuals may observe the same event, yet learn differently due to their cognitive
processes and ultimately display different leadership behaviors. Bandura (1991) outlined that
human behavior is regulated and motivated through various mechanisms. Two of these
mechanisms are self-monitoring and judging, according to personal standards and environmental
situations; and self-efficacy, which includes exercising personal agency. Providing self-
assessments and time for reflection can help employees maximize learning and behavioral
change by tapping into these self-regulatory mechanisms.
Self-Monitoring and Judging
Utilizing the important skills of self-monitoring and judging supports an individual on
their leadership journey. Individuals with the skill to self-monitor set realistic goals and evaluate
progress towards those goals to optimize learning (Bandura, 1991). Ideally, supervisors acting as
sponsors assist protégés with mapping out a career progression by creating incremental goals for
development (Cornish & Morgan, 2017). Protégés that can monitor their own learning are more
likely to follow-through and succeed with these milestones. Self-monitoring also applies to
interpersonal behaviors. Several sources recommend 360 assessments as a tool for gaining
feedback and reflecting on behavioral patterns, communication styles, and leadership skills
(Bono et al., 2017; Catalyst, 2011; Paddison, 2013). Once growth priorities are determined,
regular and timely self-observation enables close to real-time behavioral modification (Bandura).

33
In order to adapt behavior, the individual must not only self-monitor, but also exercise sound
judgment.
People construct personal standards for judging behaviors based on how significant
others react to a behavior and how others model or exemplify a behavior (Bandura, 1991).
Construction of these standards happens through reflective processing of both direct experiences
and observed experiences. Individuals also use environmental or organizational standards to
judge behaviors. Wyatt and Silvester (2015) found that feedback from supervisors proved an
important source for understanding standards, yet participants from underrepresented groups
received less of this informal, critically constructive feedback, hampering efforts to effectively
judge and modify behavior. While self-monitoring and judging behavior are important
mechanisms for individual learning, ineffective application of these skills can also undermine
growth. Bandura’s (1982, 1986) research found that focusing on accomplishments affirmed
competency but dwelling on set-backs or failures can undermine self-efficacy, a critical mediator
of attitudes toward performance and learning.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy’s keen influence on an individual’s actions and thoughts leads to the
significant role it plays in the exploration of individual performance and growth. An individual’s
belief in personal efficacy, “how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with
prospective situations” (p. 122), shapes aspirations, choices, effort, and perseverance in the face
of struggles (Bandura, 1982, 1991). Efficacy also affects the stress individuals experience in
coping with change, whether their thought patterns hinder or help actions, and their susceptibility
to depression. Betz and Hackett’s (1981) early research revealed that women’s career interests
were restricted based on a self-perceived lack of capacity to master skills for traditionally male

34
occupations. Nash and Moore’s (2019) recent research found that more females were entering
STEMM occupations, yet when women were repeatedly excluded from groups, they internalized
the rebuff and left the organization believing they did not belong.
Self-efficacy helps individuals maximize sponsorship or mentorship relationships, climb
to the executive level, and reach desired outcomes which further perpetuate self-efficacy and
foster agency. Beckwith et al. (2016) described self-efficacy as an essential trait found in
African-American female executives who excelled amidst challenges. In another study, positive
self-evaluation led to more proactive behaviors with professional networking (Liang & Gong,
2013). Individuals who see themselves as positive and optimistic experience quality mentoring in
cross-racial supervisor-subordinate relationships (Richard et al., 2019). Successfully reaching
desired outcomes, especially with challenging tasks, verifies competencies and increases self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1982). However, while reflection on past performance influences self-
efficacy, perceptions of self-efficacy play a more influential role and serve as a better predictor
of individual growth and future actions.
Powered by self-efficacy, the self-regulatory capacity and learning mindset of the
individual plays a pivotal role in the interdependent relationship between organizational
environment, sponsor behaviors, and individual learning. These three factors demonstrate how
organizations might equip individuals to navigate the leadership labyrinth. Together, these
factors also exemplify the three central elements of social cognitive theory (SCT), which Wood
and Bandura (1989) noted are relevant to the work of organizations and organizational change.
Since there is limited empirical research on sponsorship programs and even fewer studies that
focus specifically on these critical elements, this study uses the SCT theoretical lens as a

35
framework to explore the lived experiences of the protégés and the design of an organization’s
sponsorship program.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study focuses on sponsorship, an intentional process
that exerts influence on critical resources available in an organization to help individuals
navigate the leadership labyrinth. These resources include Visibility, Networks, Development
and Line-manager support (Beckwith et al., 2016; Vollmer, 2017; Wyatt & Silvester, 2015). SCT
describes a reciprocal triad of environment, behavior, and person (Bandura, 1986). In the context
of sponsorship, the SCT environmental factor is an organization’s degree of support for sponsors
and sponsorship programs that intentionally focus on increasing diversity in the leadership ranks.
The behavioral factor includes how a specific supervisor or line-manager interacts with those
they sponsor. The final point of the SCT triad is how well the employee (person) utilizes
thoughtful problem-solving as noted by Eagly and Carli (2007) while navigating the leadership
labyrinth. Additionally, each person brings their own cultural constructs to the equation and may
see their job as an opportunity to foster inclusion and diversity, leaning into the values of the
sponsorship program, or view the program as simply as a box to check to receive a paycheck.
Figure 1 illustrates how these three factors, working in concert, can illuminate pathways through
the labyrinth as the potential leader navigates choices and overcomes obstacles on the journey to
executive leadership.

36
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework: The Role of Sponsorship in Navigating the Leadership Labyrinth

Note. Tools for navigating the labyrinth adapted from Wyatt and Silvester (2015) themes. Term
“leadership labyrinth” adapted from Eagly and Carli (2007).

Conclusion
The need to effectively use our diverse human capital at the leadership level is evident to
such a degree that it is featured in the title of a fact finding report, Good for Business: Making
Full Use of the Nations Human Capital (U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). Over 25 years
later, lack of equitable access to roles and opportunities continues to undermine diversity and
inclusion in the leadership ranks, leaving valuable social, cultural, and human capital out of the
decision-making sphere. Diversity in top management teams contributes to the quality of
decision-making and innovation in companies with a strategic focus on innovation (Dezsö &
Ross, 2012; Ruiz-Jiménez et al., 2016). The literature demonstrates how sponsorship influences
critical resources found by Wyatt and Silvester (2015) and Beckwith et al. (2016) to help
individuals navigate the leadership labyrinth. Thus, focusing further research into sponsorship

37
through an organization-based sponsorship program may yield deeper understanding of the lived
experiences of the protégés and pivotal nuances of the design of the program, leading to more
effective use of sponsorship as a mechanism for change. The following chapter details the
research design and empirical methods employed to explore an established sponsorship program
at VE.

38
Chapter 3: Methodology
Sponsorship revolves around human interactions and the work of processing those
interactions. Qualitative research explores a social problem and honors the complexity of a
phenomenon as individuals or groups construct meaning or gain understanding (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). This qualitative study explored the complex interactions around sponsorship,
specifically how an organization leveraged a sponsorship program to provide opportunities for
growth of their workforce, increase equity of access to leadership roles, and create a more
diverse leadership team. Utilizing a single case-study design and phenomenological research
methods, the study yielded a rich description of the lived experiences of the protégés, as well as
the organization’s approach to the design of the sponsorship program. This choice of
methodology also aligned with social cognitive theory, part of the conceptual framework for this
study. The following research questions guided the inquiry.
RQ1: What factors contributed to the decision to create an internal sponsorship program
and what principles were used in the design of the program?
RQ2: What is the lived experience of the protégé and how has the sponsorship program
influenced their work and leadership opportunities?
RQ3: How can the sponsorship program continue to evolve to increase equity of access to
leadership opportunities?
Table 1 outlines the methods of data collection used to explore each research question.

39
Table 1
Research Questions and Method of Data Collection
Research Question Method of Data Collection
RQ1: What factors contributed to the
decision to create an internal sponsorship
program and what principles were used in
the design of the program?
N/A N/A Focus
Group
Document
Analysis
RQ2: What is the lived experience of the
protégé and how has the sponsorship
program influenced their work and
leadership opportunities?
Interview Questionnaire N/A Document
Analysis
RQ3: How can the sponsorship program
continue to evolve to increase equity of
access to leadership opportunities?
Interview N/A Focus
Group
Document
Analysis

This chapter details the research methodology, including selection of the organization’s program
as the “case,” the participating stakeholders, and the process of recruitment and criterion for
selection. It continues with an in-depth explanation of instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis. The chapter concludes with a focus on credibility, trustworthiness, and ethics. It begins
with addressing the role of the researcher.
Role of Researcher
The researcher plays a critical role in qualitative research as the primary instrument for
data collection. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) draw attention to the adaptivity and responsiveness
of a human instrument as well as the inherent bias that confounds this data collection role. My
identity as female situates me in an underrepresented group and my twelve years spent working
as a foreigner in Japan and China increases my understanding of functioning in a professional
setting as a member outside of the majority culture. However, as a White female I still often
operate from a position of privilege, especially in the United States. I am also the researcher in
the interview dynamic, which creates a power imbalance (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In

40
addition, I am an educator and bring a constructivist research lens to learning opportunities.
Finally, I recognize my bias toward the concept of the protestant work ethic and how that
worldview may bring assumptions to my study about meritocracy.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) provide guidelines for how to identify and monitor bias
rather than seek to eliminate it. I monitored bias in this study by engaging in reflexivity,
reviewing my notes to check for bias seeping into my observations and reflections as suggested
by Creswell and Creswell (2018), and acknowledging in the dissertation text how my past
experiences could be shaping my interpretation. I placed reminders at the bottom of my
interview notes to listen to the participant and their words rather than focusing on specific areas I
hope to validate in my own worldview. I was vigilant about member-checking emerging themes
with individuals on the leadership team and conducting Interviewee Transcript Review (ITR),
allowing participants to review quotes selected for possible use and make any adaptations to
ensure the quotes communicate participants’ perspectives.
Introduction of Methods
The qualitative nature of this case study dictated the methods I utilized to investigate the
experience of participants and the design of the sponsorship program. I conducted interviews
with protégés, convened a focus group with members of the leadership team, and interviewed
other leaders who served as sponsors. I analyzed documents related to the design and
implementation of the program to explore the underlying design principles and desired outcomes
of the program. The methods took into account the four characteristics of qualitative research:
inductive, richly descriptive, focuses on meaning making and understanding, and employs the
researcher as the primary instrument of data collection and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

41
This section begins with the case selection process, followed by a description of the methods and
details for the interviews, focus groups, and document analysis.
Case Selection and Recruitment of Company Partner
I employed purposeful sampling (Patton, 2015 as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to
ensure the case selection aligned with the research questions and afforded access to an
information-rich case where I might gain in-depth understanding about organization-based
sponsorship. Four specific criteria guided the selection and recruitment of the company partner
and its sponsorship program as the case for this study.
Criterion 1. The organization must be actively implementing their established
sponsorship program or mentorship program. I allowed for “mentorship” program in
cases where the program content resembled sponsorship activities, since the terms
“sponsor” and “mentor” were often used interchangeably in the research literature.
Criterion 2: The sponsorship program needs to be conceived as a purposeful way to
increase diversity at the leadership level of the organization.
Criterion 3: The organization needs to be structured as a for-profit or non-profit private
entity whose business includes STEMM related activities, such as biotechnology,
finance, or engineering.
Criterion 4. The organization needs to see benefit in participating in the study and desire
to partner with me.
I used an internet search to generate a pool of approximately one hundred organizations
who mentioned either mentorship or sponsorship within the description of how their organization
advanced diversity and inclusion. I compiled a list of 10 organizations that had public
information available to demonstrate that they met the first three criteria for selection. I sent

42
introductory emails with a brief project introduction and information sheet to five organizations
and scheduled individual meetings with three organizations who responded to my initial query.
Ultimately, VE met all four criteria and agreed to partner in this study, further refining the
bounded-system to be an intentionally designed sponsorship program at a large for-profit
organization in the financial services sphere during the first phase (year 1-5) of implementation
of the program.
Though only a small number of organizations answered my initial inquiry, VE’s program
proved well-suited for this study and represented a key case to gain “exemplary knowledge”
about the phenomenon of a company-based sponsorship program (Thomas, 2011). The initial
exploratory meeting confirmed VE’s solid fit for the study. Representatives described an
organizational culture focused on improvement and welcomed the opportunity to learn more
deeply about the experiences of protégés in the program. Both program designers and key senior
leaders still worked at the organization. Finally, since the study would be conducted near the end
of the third year of implementation, data from multiple cohorts would be available for analysis.
Protégé Interviews
The selection of interviews for data collection aligned well with my second and third
research question (RQ2 & 3) and the need for creating a rich description of human experience.
Exploring the lived experiences of protégés in the sponsorship program necessitated listening to
others’ perspectives and interpretations, allowing topics to emerge, and collecting in-depth detail
on the topic. These are all strengths of the interview method described in Morgan (2017). To
operationalize the interviews, I recruited key stakeholders, prepared instrumentation, and
planned for data collection and data analysis.
Participating Stakeholders: Protégés

43
The interview portion of the study focused on members who were currently participating
in the sponsorship program or alumni of the program. The selection was the second level of
sampling; the first level was the selection of the case and type of organization. I conducted 13
protégé interviews, over 50% of the pool of 23 possible participants, following the proposed
guidelines for phenomenology and grounded theory studies in Creswell and Creswell (2018).
The participant sample included multiple individuals from various underrepresented groups and
closely resembled the larger pool of possible participants. At the time of the study, the program
was open only to underrepresented groups and the following two criteria further guided the
selection process.
Criterion 1: The participant will be a current or past participant of the program. VE
currently employs 23 individuals who meet this criteria, 15 past participants and 8 current
participants.
Criterion 2: The participant can be any age, gender, and ethnicity.
A company representative sent an introductory email explaining the partnership with me and
emphasized the voluntary nature of participation in the study.
For the initial sampling, I sent email invitations to all current and past participants of the
program which included the Study Information Sheet and reiterated the voluntary nature of
participation. Five volunteered after the first email, six after the follow-up two weeks later, and
two more volunteered after the final email sent a month later. As recommended by Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), this purposeful sampling approach connected me directly with individuals who
provided the needed perspectives on the sponsorship program experience, since the second
research question focused specifically on program participants, not all members of the
organization. Upon consulting the organization, it was deemed best to not provide an honorarium

44
to the participants but a simple thank you from the researcher. Participation remained
confidential between the researcher and each individual volunteer.
Instrumentation - Protégé Interviews
I employed a semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix A), using an initial list of
16 items and probing questions to explore various pathways of participant stories and
experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured design helped focus the data on the
specific research questions (RQ2 & 3), and aided in “winnowing the data” during the initial
coding process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 191). I consulted Patton’s (2002) matrix of
question options (p. 352): behaviors/experiences, opinions/values, feelings/emotions, knowledge,
sensory, and background, to provide clarity about the choice and meaning of questions. The
opening section of questions focused on participants’ selection and entry into the program, their
previous experience with sponsorship or mentorship, and their understanding of the role of a
sponsor versus a mentor. The middle section and the bulk of the interview items delved into
participants’ experiences and interactions with the sponsor and coach, feelings, judgments, and
perceptions of self-efficacy. This section also addressed participants’ approach to their learning
throughout the program and decisions to make a change in behavior, which is part of social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1982). The final section focused on career goals, as well as
opportunities to reflect and offer input on strengths of the program, improvements, and selection
criteria for future program participants.
The design of the interview questions sought to elicit rich, thick descriptions of the
participants’ experiences to mine the data for specific markers of environmental influences, how
the sponsor’s behavior influenced the protégé, and individual’s cognitive processes that make up
Bandura’s theory. I shared a draft of the interview protocol with colleagues, advisors, and the

45
dissertation committee to find and remove any “yes/no” items or “why” questions which
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note to avoid. I scrutinized the protocol for improvements through
two iterations of field testing and revision, including an online session with an external group of
researchers.
Prior to the interviews, I sent each participant an email to confirm the interview time and
asked them to complete a pre-interview questionnaire (see Appendix B). The questionnaire
included nominal, ordinal, and closed-ended items, as well as open-ended items. I carefully
reviewed participant answers to shape and refine the final choices of interview questions.
Specific data collection procedures for the interviews follow.
Data Collection Procedures - Protégé Interviews
Since the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis, Patton
(2002) emphasized that the quality of the information gained during an interview depends on the
skill of the individual conducting the interview. In addition to the careful design and continuing
refinement of the interview protocol, I acted on interview research recommendations regarding
establishing rapport with study participants. At the outset of each interview, I explained the
purpose and confidentiality of the research, and I monitored myself throughout the interview to
ensure the interviewee did most of the talking, understood what I was asking, and had sufficient
time to answer questions (Johnson & Christiensen, 2014). I confirmed that each participant
received the Information Sheet (see Appendix C) and answered any questions. I obtained consent
to record the interview and took field notes during the interview. Participants could decline to be
recorded and still participate in the interview. Interviews were between 45 and 60 minutes in
length and conducted via video conferencing software due to participant location and Covid-19
restrictions for face-to-face meetings. Upon completion of the interview, I thanked each

46
participant and reiterated that I would follow-up regarding any direct quotes I might use to
ensure accurate representation.
I reviewed and completed my field notes for each interview within 24 hours. This
enabled me to stay engaged in the moment with active listening during the interview. I wrote
research memos to note observations and insights that I was unable to record during the session
and added new probes to the protocol that arose during the first several interviews. I also noted
whether the amount of time passed since participation in the program seemed to influence the
level of detail in responses and whether participant answers seemed nuanced or only offered up
socially desirable comments. Interview recordings were securely uploaded into the transcription
service Rev.com to prepare the information for data analysis.
Data Analysis - Protégé Interviews
The data analysis process included segmenting the data and combining it together,
relying on multiple levels of analysis to foster meaning making and understanding (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). I used Tesch’s Eight Steps in the Coding Process (Creswell & Creswell, p. 195)
to guide each iteration of analysis. I listened to every interview and made corrections to the
transcription. During each transcription review session, I added memos to my research journal. I
noted overall meaning or threads running through the interview, copied especially rich or
insightful quotes, recorded topics to inform future coding insights, and described emerging
themes or categories for the protégé’s program experience and leadership journey (RQ2).
I utilized Atlas.ti software to aid in the organization and analysis of the data. I employed
a priori codes related to the study’s conceptual framework to trace the presence of characteristics
from Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and the presence of Wyatt and Silvester’s (2015)
themes for career progression, visibility, networks, development, and supervisor support. I added

47
emerging codes from my research memos, uploaded the transcripts, and coded the first three
interviews. I further split a priori codes to refine the grain of analysis and expanded the code
book with a few additional codes. I wrote memos in my research journal about possible emerging
analytic codes based on their descriptions of program experience and their reflections on
program outcomes.
After completing the first three interviews, I reviewed coding categories and continued
the coding process. I anonymized a fourth interview and asked a colleague to code separately and
then discuss with me to discover additional codes or themes from a different positionality and
perspective. I then coded the remaining nine interviews, sketching out emerging themes for areas
of potential combination or clustering based on commonalities and inter-relatedness. I exported
quote collections for each participant, read the data set and returned to augment or refine any
coding for context. I also created protégé grouping/continuums. I then exported various codes
and clusters by emerging themes to view responses from all participants and obtain a global view
of all 13 voices. I employed several analytic frameworks throughout the coding process
including SCT with protégé learning, coach or sponsor actions aimed at helping protégés acquire
tools for navigating the leadership labyrinth, and program opportunity and prioritization by the
protégé aligned with self-described outcomes.
Leadership Focus Group and Sponsor Interviews
The focus group provided an alternative way to collect interview data. Four criteria
typically guide the decision to use individual or focus group interviews: study design, time
constraints of participants, location or setting of interviews, and the influence of members
hearing each other’s responses (Burkholder et al., 2020). Case study research commonly uses
both individual and focus groups, influencing my choice to include a focus group for this study.

48
Additionally, the nature of inquiry around the genesis and design of the sponsorship program
(RQ1) lends itself to rich dialogue among team members that may spark further recollections and
comments from other members, enhancing each individual’s response. To operationalize the
focus group, I followed the same process of recruiting key stakeholders, preparing
instrumentation, and planning for data collection and analysis.
Participating Stakeholders: Leadership Team
Since the focus group interview centered around the genesis and design of the
sponsorship program, I used purposeful sampling and exclusively recruited members of the
leadership team to participate. I worked closely with the site representative to identify possible
members and sent invitations and the Study Information Sheet to all members on the list. Every
member invited agreed to participate except one external coach due to schedule conflict.
Participation was voluntary, though the visible nature of a focus group may have exerted
organizational influence on the decision process. As recommended by Burkholder et al. (2020), I
consulted the site representative prior to the focus group for any specific cultural nuances or
dynamics that might inform my preparation and understanding of the group context. This
contextualization helped refine the focus group data collection instrument and protocols, as well
as led to the addition of a second focus group opportunity.
Participating Stakeholders: Sponsors
Two members of the leadership team also served as sponsors in the program and could
offer a firsthand perspective on their program experience. To balance this viewpoint, I decided to
recruit a second focus group of sponsors not involved in the design of the program to offer a
more complete perspective on the sponsor’s role. The same recruitment process followed. The
organization sent an introductory email, followed by my individual invitations that included the

49
Study Information Sheet. Participation was voluntary and three individuals responded.
Scheduling the focus group proved challenging, so I ultimately decided to pivot to individual
interviews for this additional subgroup. I interviewed four sponsors individually in lieu of the
planned focus group. Participation remained confidential between the researcher and the
volunteers.
Instrumentation - Leadership Team Focus Group
The leadership team focus group took place the day after the first protégé interview and
used the same form of semi-structured interview as the individual interviews. However, the
protocol was designed to foster conversation among members, not simply questions and answers
with the researcher. Krueger and Casey (2009) recommended the conversational tone to relax
participants and create conditions that move discussion to a deeper level. They also offered
practical ideas for designing questions as well as suggestions to segment the focus group
questions into opening (which includes transition questions), key questions, and closing
questions, each serving a distinct purpose.
A concise protocol including a bank of 8 questions (See Appendix D) guided the focus
group conversation. I dedicated the bulk of the session to facilitating a rich discussion around
key questions, which will require about 10-20 minutes for each topic (Krueger & Casey, 2009).
Similar to the design of the individual interviews, I used selected questions that coincided with
reciprocal components of social cognitive theory to trace any intentional or unintentional
alignment in the sponsorship program design (RQ1). I shared a draft of the protocol with
colleagues, advisors, and the dissertation committee to screen for unnecessary jargon or improve
question language that might enrich participant responses. I asked the site representative to

50
review the items and offer suggestions based on their knowledge of the sponsorship process,
which helped to situate the inquiry within the organization’s local context.
Instrumentation – Sponsors Interviews
The transition from focus group to individual interview allowed for more personal
disclosure of experiences and resulted in an adapted sponsor protocol (See Appendix E) similar
to the protégé interviews. Question items focused on the experience of the sponsor (RQ2) and
how the program might improve (RQ3). Since the sponsor interviews were only 30 minutes, I
reviewed the protocol with colleagues for concision and prioritization of topics.
Data Collection Procedures - Leadership Focus Group and Sponsor Interviews
Data obtained in the leadership focus group was “socially constructed within the
interactions of the group” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 114). Therefore, it was paramount to
create a setting that fostered rich interaction. I worked with the site representative to schedule the
focus group session in a virtual setting since all members were not in the same location. I sent an
email reminder with a sampling of questions and asked the participant to review in advance any
notes or material that might have shaped their original thinking and design choices for the
program. At the beginning of the focus group session, I followed the interview guide, referenced
the Study Information Sheet, asked if there were any questions for clarification, and obtained
consent to record the session.
Serving as the facilitator for the session enabled me to make real-time judgements on the
question route afforded by the semi-structured format. The group discourse was fluid and I rarely
utilized Smithson’s (2000) advice for dealing with three common issues that arise during a focus
group: dominant voices, constructing the “other” (effect of the moderator), and normative
discourse. I took field notes during the focus group and recorded observations and additional

51
notes in a research memo following the session. At the conclusion of the focus group, I thanked
the participants and encouraged them to contact me if they had any questions or additional
thoughts regarding the topics discussed. I reiterated that I would contact the group regarding any
direct quotes to ensure the accuracy of the attribution. The audio recording was securely
uploaded to Rev.com to prepare the information for data analysis. The individual sponsor
interviews took place during the second half of the project timeline and followed the same data
collection procedures used for the individual protégé interviews.
Data Analysis - Leadership Focus Group and Sponsor Interviews
As noted earlier, one strength of a focus group is socially constructed meaning. However,
the three common issues raised by Smithson (2000) also influence focus group data analysis. I
began my analysis by reviewing field notes for possible instances of dominant voices, moderator
bias, or normative discourse. Next, I listened to the audio and reviewed the transcript for any
errors. I made notes in my research journal regarding additional codes, emerging themes, key
quotes, and ideas for probes to include in the individual protégé interviews. I uploaded the
transcript to Atlas.ti.
Coding primarily focused on the program genesis and key principles that influenced
design choices (RQ1) and how the program might evolve and improve (RQ3). I then constructed
a timeline and rich program description and reviewed my notes for any instances where
information provided might have been overly influenced by the socially constructed setting. I
tabulated the quoted contributions for each member and reviewed the coded categories for
singular or contradictory voices and recorded emerging themes for key design principles. I
conducted follow-up interviews with two leadership team members to better understand the
design and implementation of the nomination and selection process.

52
The individual sponsor interview analysis followed a similar process to the individual
protégé interview analysis. While reviewing transcripts, I decided to split a few codes to allow
for a more granular analysis. The code book was extensive at that stage, so I differentiated codes
to separate sponsors and protégé responses.
Document and Artifact Analysis
The inclusion of document and artifact analysis served two important purposes: it
provided data to triangulate themes and findings that emerged from the individual interviews and
focus group; and it offered insight into historical perspectives, written program goals and
processes, and aspirational ideas for the sponsorship program. For example, documents used in
training programs provided a window into the prioritization of information and the key
components of the program (RQ1). Program documents also showed the expected activities and
outcomes of some of the sessions included in the program, which led to threads of inquiry for
interviews (RQ2 & 3) (Patton, 2002).
Instrumentation - Documents and Artifacts
I reviewed and processed documents and artifacts using a five-step analysis protocol
(Appendix F). Hesse-Biber and Leavy’s (2010) work with emergent methods of research
informed the protocol design. The protocol included the following steps, and within each step, I
analyzed the use of language and coded the document for emerging themes.
1. Collection of Document
2. Categorization of type of document
3. Analysis of topics for emerging themes
4. Content and discourse analysis for key words
5. Analysis of document use

53
Data Collection Procedures - Documents and Artifacts
I accessed and retrieved all public-facing documents online. I categorized separately
public-facing documents and private, confidential documents. I worked with the site
representative to negotiate access to documents at the beginning the study as Patton (2002)
recommends. Documents obtained included anonymized program surveys, anonymized and
redacted examples of nomination forms, and anonymized role progressions for all program
participants. The consulting group who partners with VE owns the rights to the training session
materials for protégés and sponsors. To protect intellectual property, I interviewed the consultant
who described the contents of the documents without compromising proprietary details. I
maintained confidentiality for all documents by using pseudonyms to ensure the organization’s
anonymity and reporting metrics in aggregate form to protect confidentiality. I reviewed any
information included from documents with the organization representatives.
Data Analysis - Documents and Artifacts
I was able to analyze all documents and artifacts provided by the organization and gather
details on approximately 50% of the training documents. My first read-through of many
documents took place during the participant recruitment phase, allowing for adjustments to the
interview protocols. Once this initial review was complete and the interviews conducted, I noted
connections between documents and protégés’ descriptions. I used this data to inform my search
for possible program influences on the protégés’ sponsorship experience (RQ2).
I reviewed general documents related to the overall program, including metrics for
diversity and public facing documents that described program in the context of the larger
company ecosystem. I analyzed these documents for evidence of the program genesis, factors
that informed design choices, and any individuals who served as influential actors in the program

54
design and approval process (RQ1). The documents helped support a rich, descriptive account of
the program and highlighted pivotal design choices which I compared to participant perspectives.
Final Analysis Across Data Sets
I collected and analyzed data throughout the iterative research process. Each stage of data
analysis informed the next stage, as patterns and themes gradually emerged, and sub-categories
developed. I used research memos to record patterns of congruence among participants as well as
possible alternative explanations. As a final step of analysis, I conducted a global review of all
data across the different methods of inquiry: interviews, focus group, and document analysis.
First, I reviewed the coding data and themes for the focus group and document analysis to
search for alignment or misalignment between program espoused theories and theories-in-use
(Argyris & Schon, 1974). Second, I studied individual interview codes, themes, and quotes
alongside the document analysis and focus group themes to search for any evidence of
connections between intended effects of the program design and the lived experiences of the
protégés. Next, I analyzed the themes from the focus group and individual interviews to search
for congruence or dissimilarity and to compare perspectives of leadership and protégés. Finally, I
compared intended program goals with any emergent interview themes regarding future program
improvements to discover either program goals that have not yet been realized or new avenues
for leveraging sponsorship that were not yet considered in the program design. This global
analysis and comparisons across data sets triangulated data and solidified or weakened emergent
themes.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To maximize credibility and trustworthiness, I focused on the following actions noted in
Merriam and Tisdell (2016): triangulation; member checks; critical self-reflection; peer-review;

55
audit trail; and rich, thick descriptions. Specifically, related to the interview process, I designed
interview questions for triangulation with questionnaire responses, as well as data from
document checks and the leadership focus group for a mixed data set. Johnson and Christiensen
(2014) described this intermethod mixing as a way to construct a strong data set by leveraging
the strengths of different methods to counteract the inherent weaknesses in each method.
After crafting some initial findings and detailing the choices made in design of the
sponsorship program, I used member checks with two leadership team focus group members
regarding emerging findings, and I gave each focus group participant the chance to review a
document with potential interview quotes that could appear in the study text or appendixes.
Every individual interview participant received their full interview transcript for review and
could highlight language I should not quote directly in the text. Participants also received a
personalized document with the quotes included in the text of the study for final approval.
Additionally, I kept a research journal as an audit trail of the decisions made in the study,
including how I located and selected my partner organization, the selection of participants to
interview, and memos regarding my reflexivity.
I used a professional, secure service to transcribe all interviews. During data analysis, I
participated in dialogic engagement around my reflections and emerging themes, as well as
multiple coding of one interview, and multiple passes at each interview, to guard against possible
bias due to my aligned positionality with several participants (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). I also took
notes during data collection and analysis to contextualize the study and provide readers with the
rich, thick description necessary to determine transferability. In addition to taking action to
ensure credibility, I also adhered to clear ethical guidelines while conducting research.

56
Ethics
Research design needs to consider ethical issues anticipated prior to research and those
that arise during research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In order to address issues prior to the study, I submitted my proposal for IRB approval, selected a
site that would not raise power issues, and completed the human subject certification course
provided by the university. As I selected my case and participants, I followed Creswell and
Creswell’s advice on needs-assessment and was mindful to not exploit participants for my
research purposes, but rather, intentionally sought to provide a clear benefit to participants and
the organization. Along with this dissertation, I committed to providing the organization with a
separate, executive summary report to make findings and recommendations easily accessible to
all study participants.
During the study, I provided multiple opportunities for participants to understand the
general purpose of the study and worked with the organization to be mindful of specific cultural
nuances across their different global offices. Interview data and analysis records were stored in
password protected software. I used pseudonyms and aggregated data to protect confidentiality
of participants. Additionally, I clarified with the organization the degree to which information
may be shared beyond my dissertation and agreed to their request for final approval of any
additional data use. While conducting research, I was mindful of the different roles Glesne
(2011) describes: exploiter, advocate, reformer, and friend while seeking to navigate with
sensitivity any ethical issues that arose.

57
Chapter 4: Findings
There is a researchable disconnect between lesser diversity at the leadership level and
greater diversity in more junior roles. Sponsorship could provide the tools and support necessary
to successfully navigate the complex pathways to leadership roles often experienced by
underrepresented groups, if available evidence is credible. Lingering questions about the role and
value of sponsorship programs is the broad issue this investigation addressed. This qualitative
case-study explored Valiant Equity’s (VE) sponsorship program. The objective was
understanding how the organization designed and implemented its sponsorship program to
provide professional growth and greater equity of access to leadership roles, and to increase
diversity at the leadership table. Three research questions guided this qualitative inquiry:
RQ1: What factors contributed to the decision to create an internal sponsorship program
and what principles were used in the design of the program?
RQ2: What is the lived experience of the protégé and how has the sponsorship program
influenced their work and leadership opportunities?
RQ3: How can the sponsorship program continue to evolve to increase equity of access to
leadership opportunities?
Multiple sources of qualitative data were collected and analyzed, including interviews, a focus
group, and internal and external documents to create a rich, detailed description of the complex
actions and interactions that influenced the growth of protégés and the course of their leadership
journeys.
The study began with early document analysis to gain an overview of the VE sponsorship
program, organizational culture, and the larger ecosystem of the organizational processes and
programs seeking to increase diversity at the leadership level. The analysis informed final

58
refinement and selection of the focus group and interview items to guide relevant reflection and
in-depth accounts of the participants’ experiences and perspectives. Next, focus groups were
conducted with the VE leadership team to understand the intention behind the program design
and desired outcomes, which further guided the interviews with the protégés and sponsors.
Atlas.ti was used to code interviews, which allowed for tracking the number of coded texts,
designating multiple codes, and clustering codes into categories. These coding features
facilitated analysis by revealing frequency of experiences or perspectives across the sample and
presented a road map of axial codes and themes. Some of the data were straightforward in nature,
for example the program-design process and findings are reported in descriptive, chronological
order. The themes found in the lived experiences and perspectives of the protégés lent
themselves to a narrative structure, recounting the protégés’ individual and collective journey
through the program, which at times followed a singular path and other times diverged into
multiple routes.
The chapter begins with a description of the participating stakeholders. Next, findings for
each research question follows in sequential order: the genesis, design, and early adaptations of
the program; the lived experiences of the protégés and their leadership journey; and the possible
evolutions to the sponsorship program. Characteristics of social cognitive theory (SCT) and the
tools for navigating the leadership labyrinth, both components of the conceptual framework for
this study, are visible throughout the findings and will be explicitly highlighted in detail for the
second research question—the lived experiences of the protégés. A brief discussion of specific
findings concludes each research section, and a final summary of findings completes the chapter.

59
Participating Stakeholders
The people-centric nature of the study led to three different groups of stakeholders, a
leadership team focus group, four individual sponsors, and 13 program participants (protégés).
The researcher collaborated with VE’s organizational representatives to purposefully select focus
group participants whose voices and perspectives could offer insight on the program genesis and
design. All individuals who served as sponsors over the first three years of the program (2019,
2020, and 2021) and all protégés who participated in the program received invitations to
participate in the study.
Participating Stakeholders: Leadership Team
The focus group included four VE employees, one of whom was a key architect of the
sponsorship program, and the external consultant who was another key architect of the program.
Table 2 details the organizational role of each member. While including role descriptions could
reveal participant identity to other internal members of VE, all focus group participants
consented to this approach as it showcased the level of organizational commitment to the
program. To protect confidentiality of individual participant’s contributions, all direct quotes are
attributed to “a member of the focus group.”

60
Table 2
Leadership Team Focus Group Participants
Participant Role
Member 1 Partner from influential business unit. Also chairs the global Diversity and
Inclusion (D&I) Committee and a key architect of program. Organization
point person for program. Served as a sponsor in the program.
Member 2 C-Suite executive. Member of industry foundation focused on promoting
diversity. Part of Leadership team who approved the program in the
genesis stage. Served as sponsor in the program. Member of the global
D&I Committee.
Member 3 C-Suite executive and head of key business unit. Part of Leadership team
who approved the program in the genesis stage. Member of the global
D&I Committee.
Member 4 Head of Talent Development. Member of D&I Committee. New to the
organization and serves as fresh eyes on the program with a view to
making enhancements as it enters its 4
th
year.
Member 5 External consultant who works with the organization on many levels. A key
architect of the program along with others within the company. Serves as a
coach in the program.

Participating Stakeholders: Sponsors
As noted in Chapter Three, the second group of participants, leaders who served as
sponsors, provided another perspective from sponsors who were not a part of the program
design. While originally conceived as a sponsor focus group, scheduling issues resulted in four
individual interviews. A sponsor from every year of the program and at least one male and
female were included in the sample. To protect confidentiality, the researcher assigned each
participant a pseudonym and did not report gender or the first year of participation. Since the
focus of the study is primarily the lived experiences of the protégé, the sponsors provided a
helpful perspective but are not quoted often. The pseudonyms are Vivienne, Zuri, Sloan, and
Jayden.
Participating Stakeholders: Protégés

61
Out of a participant pool of 23 protégés who participated in the program during the first
three years, 13 agreed to participate in the study. The sample closely resembled the entire pool of
possible participants with representation from both genders and multiple ethnicities. Pseudonyms
were assigned to each participant, some gender neutral, to protect confidentiality. Each
participant was randomly assigned one pseudonym from various cultures, so the reader should
make no inferences about participant race or ethnicity. Protégé quotes are often followed by the
assigned pseudonyms, but in some instances the quote has no pseudonym attached to further
protect confidentiality within the organization. Table 3 includes the demographic characteristics
for both the protégé sample and total population, and the pseudonyms assigned to the protégés.
Due to the small population of possible participants and the need to protect identities, only
general descriptions are included for comparison purposes.

Table 3
Protégé Characteristics
Characteristics of Protégé Sample (n=13) Characteristics of Total Protégé Population
(n=23)
Male and female representation; Racially
diverse; Eight different categories of
function; Diverse US and international
offices; Almost all promoted going into
the year of the program or promoted the
year after the program.
Male and female representation; Racially
diverse; Nine different categories of
function; Diverse US and international
offices; Almost all promoted going into the
year of the program or promoted the year
after the program.
Pseudonyms:
Anna, Camila, Dakota, Indigo, Jade,
Jordan, Joshua, Kai, Nola, Ramsey, Sage,
Taylor, Tori

62
RQ1: What factors contributed to the decision to create an internal sponsorship program
and what principles were used in the design of the program?
The definition and purpose of “sponsorship” might vary between different individuals or
organizations. However, essential criteria include sponsor advocacy and influence on career
opportunities for the protégé, which differentiates sponsorship from mentorship. The study of the
genesis and design process of the VE program, revealed important insights about the central
goals, factors, and theory of change that informed the initial plan. This research question
retrospectively traced the program design journey from conception to the beginning of year-four
implementation. This section reports the genesis, design, and adaptations made to the program,
followed by a brief discussion of implications.
Genesis of the Program
No singular moment, individual need, or particular idea marked the origin of the VE
sponsorship program. This claim is based on focus group data and document analysis revealing
five factors converging to inspire the program creation: the organization’s foundational values
and nurturing them during rapid growth; the desire to retain top talent and support development
at a critical juncture in the employee’s leadership journey; the business-case for diversity; the
promise of intentional sponsorship for meeting identified needs; and the partnership of an
external consultant and an internal champion for the project.
The first of these five converging factors, VE’s foundational values, resurfaced multiple
times in the focus group discussion with company leaders. One member of the focus group
emphasized, “It has been in the culture from the beginning, I think a big part of the reason for the
focus on diversity and inclusion is that it is consistent with our core values.” At another point in
the dialogue a member offered, “That idea of inclusion has been in the firm’s DNA from the

63
beginning.” While some organizations lose their way during periods of rapid growth, leaving
foundational values by the wayside, VE sought to be proactive and, “put a formal structure in
place around D&I ...[to] really institutionalize like we had institutionalized other things as we
had grown.” The team’s recollections of discussions combined with program documents from
VE showed how the formation of the Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Committee created space for
voices from various parts of the organization. These voices provided critical input on needs and
ideas for improving employee experience and illuminating paths to senior leadership for
underrepresented groups. This commitment to live out organizational values and provide space
for dialogue was critical to garnering and investing resources in the sponsorship program.
The second factor influencing the genesis of the program was VE’s undeniable focus on
supporting people and retaining talent. As one member put it, “We’re a people business. …to
have the best people and to keep them is top of mind.” Referencing the time period before the
sponsorship program, focus group members shared the challenges employees experienced and
recalled the departure of several talented individuals from underrepresented groups just as they
were entering that leadership stage. It was clear that retention connected closely with support
during a significant time in a leader’s journey. Table 4 lists quotes, at least one from every
member of the focus group at VE during the genesis stage. The quotes illustrate the dialogue and
consensus from senior leaders and their commitment to helping employees navigate the
challenges encountered when entering the leadership level and successfully perform new
leadership roles.

64
Table 4
Focus Group’s Identification of Challenges Experienced on Leadership Path
Challenges to Navigate Quotes from Participants
Unaware of
Opportunities / How to
Prepare Yourself
“It’s how do you get to know about them [opportunities] and then
how you could prepare yourself to take advantage of those
opportunities once you do know about them.”
Unable to See Career
Path
“It really is a combination of the recruiting, widening the funnel,
but then also developing a team internally and showing that
there was a career path.”

“Mid-level diverse individuals … viewed as potential future
leaders … they left … we actually talked to them … [got]
feedback about … How can we do a better job at retaining
people, at showing people what their career path is?”

New Skill Set Needed “When you go to the mid-level, you go from being someone who's
executing … to someone who's managing a team … managing a
workflow, thinking a little bit more strategically about the
business … delegating to more junior people.”
Don’t Feel Valued /
Supported
“Without that support wrapped around them and that extra
investment, it's no fault of anyone. It's very easy for there to be a
leak in the pipeline at that point.”

“There's a lot happening from a career professional standpoint …
naturally at the mid-levels, there's a lot of changes in people's
personal lives too…. so what can we do to help...to invest in
people?”

Lack a Sense of
Belonging
“If you have people walking around, who don't see people like
them at the top, and then don't feel that there's someone looking
out for them and cares whether they're here or not…”

"[the protégé said], ‘I look to senior leadership. I don't see anyone
like me.’ … And that was affecting [the protégé]. …
[wondering] ‘How do I get there? Because I don't see someone
like me there.’”

A group member also recalled an internal research project undertaken in 2017. This
initiative focused on capturing ground-level knowledge and input from employees, “The answers
are in the system philosophy … the employees know what is working and what is missing,” and

65
listening to employees about the issues and challenges. Focus group dialogue indicated
information gathered during this period about the need for better employee support and
specifically addressing challenges faced by underrepresented groups played a critical role in the
genesis of the sponsorship program.
According to focus group members, not only did a commitment to diversity and inclusion
align with VE’s core values, but it was also good for business—the third key factor that
influenced the program formation. As one member noted, “It's not just the right thing to do. It
makes business sense. … we've actually seen some of the benefits … not just in third party
research … we ourselves have seen … the benefits of that over time.” VE’s public facing
documents also communicated the business-case for being an inclusive organization and
increasing diversity at the leadership level. Every focus group member from the organization
acknowledged this during the session. One explained from a client perspective, “Diversity is a
competitive advantage because our clients are incredibly diverse,” and another member
highlighted diversity as a way to a hedge against risk, “A danger in the investment world is …
groupthink … and that can create risks and potentially lead to making less optimal investment
decisions.”
Perhaps the most influential factor in the genesis of the sponsorship program was
discovering the synergy between the challenges identified in the 2017 internal study and the
concept of sponsorship, laying out a promising path to change. The D&I committee looked both
externally to what other organizations were doing and internally to hear ideas from employees. A
focus group member recalled that during this year of study and exploration, they came to realize
how influential this action called “sponsorship” had been in paving their own pathways to
leadership:

66
I had a sponsor all through my career …[yet] I didn't even really know what that word
meant or would say, "Oh, that person sponsored me." Then when I started educating
myself on sponsorship program[s] and what that really means, I realized, "Oh, okay, well
that person's been my sponsor," and how important that was. ... having someone that not
just giving you kind of career advice and being a mentor but is really pushing you, is
advocating for you when you're not in the room, is finding good opportunities for you, is
going way beyond what a mentor does. So, in my own career [I] really saw the benefit of
sponsorship and I said, "Okay, this could be a really interesting program." And, that's
when [I] talked to [the consultant].
Another focus group member recalled conversations between the two of them during this genesis
stage. Neither of their sponsorship experiences were part of a formal program but evolved
through, “The relationships that develop naturally.” There was concern that “If it’s forced, is it
going to be effective?” This question could only be answered once the program was up and
running.
These recollections shared in the focus grouped sparked an insightful thought
surrounding the concept of sponsorship, described by another member as the “luck factor”:
How I think about it is, sponsorship is so important that you can't allow it to be organic
only. So, you have to solve for that. You have to solve for that luck factor, that some
people just happen to land in a role where there happens to be somebody nearby who gets
it, intuitively gets it and knows... and [is] sponsoring someone, even if they don't know
what it's called. And some people are not that lucky.
This acknowledgement of the “luck factor,” a recurrent thread in the findings, seemed to help
make the case for a formalized sponsorship program, outweighing the concern that the

67
effectiveness of intentional sponsor-protégé pairings may fall short of more spontaneous and
organic sponsor relationships. Focus group members recalled meetings at the partner level during
this time where they worked to deepen their understanding of the sponsor role and what that role
and program might look like for VE. Senior leaders also made critical contributions in advancing
the case for sponsorship. One focus group member explained that during an off-site partner
meeting, "One of our founders and the CEO jumped in also, and really kind of hit it very
succinctly on why this was really important.” The only remaining hurdle was how to manage the
feelings of those not selected for the program, but the synergy between organizational need and
the discovery of “sponsorship” as a theory of change was the pivotal step that pushed the
program into motion.
Throughout the research process, references to a few key individuals repeatedly surfaced
in conversation, public-facing documents, and interview sessions. The researcher’s analysis of
the frequency and nature of these attributions revealed a fifth converging factor in the formation
process - the dynamic combination of a champion for the project at the partner level paired with
an experienced and credible external consultant. The skilled guidance from the consultant helped
to map out exploration by the D&I committee during the study phase and provided research and
examples to bring the concept of sponsorship to life. The champion for the project brought
sincere passion for inclusion and retaining talented mid-level level employees to increase
diversity at the leadership level. Importantly, the champion also held a seat at the leadership
table.
Based on the researcher’s analysis of program documents and focus group responses,
these were the five factors that advanced VE to the program-design starting line. Next, the team
needed to construct a program that invested in mid-level leaders and showed them a path to

68
leadership at VE—a program that would equip individuals to navigate the coming twists and
turns encountered on the complex journey to senior leadership.
Design of the Program
Many of the factors that contributed to the genesis of the sponsorship program also
influenced the design. Focus group members described active collaboration between the external
consultant and VE employees during the design phase. The consultant’s expertise in sponsorship
and coaching combined with VE leaders’ internal knowledge of organizational culture, structure,
and employee needs, resulted in a tailored design of effective program features found in external
research and publications. This section describes the principles and processes used during this
initial design phase of the sponsorship program, followed by the key features and qualities of the
program.
Design Principles and Process
The recollections from focus group members highlighted several design principles that
aligned with findings from VE’s 2017 exploratory study. First, the program needed to
communicate to selected protégés the company’s confidence in their potential as future leaders
and present to them a viable path to leadership at VE. Second, the program needed to leverage
formal sponsorship as a solution for the “luck factor.” As one focus group member stated,
“Visibility within the senior ranks is really important, right? If someone is high potential, but
only a few people know that ... how do we help everybody to understand that and recognize
that?” Third, the program needed to ensure participants the requisite resources to target
individual growth. Fourth, the program needed to provide opportunities to develop or refine new
leadership skills. Finally, the program needed a commitment from VE for a sustained investment
of the human and financial resources needed for authentic sponsorship.

69
The design process occurred over two years (2017-2018) prior to the first nomination of
protégés in fall of 2018 and the launch of the first cohort in 2019. Focus group members
described the process and key actions, “One of the important things we’ve done over time is
listen … surveys … feedback from these efforts. Certainly, a lot of these ideas didn’t necessarily
originate at the top but we … listened to the views of the team.” VE’s internal documents
described with extensive detail the program features and processes, indicating the time and effort
dedicated in the design phase to create an effective program for their employees. Figure 2
illustrates the design process and timeline for the program.
Figure 2
Design Timeline for Sponsorship Program

Key Features of the Program
Analysis of participant interviews, focus group transcripts, internal and external
documents revealed a collection of key features that undergird the design and efficacy of the
sponsorship program. Table 5 provides a description of these items with data sources indicated
following the description.

•Exploratory Study
•Program Genesis
2017
•Collaborative Design
Process
•Consultant, Partner,
D&I Committee
2018
•Nomination
•Selection of Cohort 1
Q4 2018
• February
Orientation
Launch
2019

70
Table 5
Description of the Key Features of VE’s Sponsorship Program
Key Features
of the Program
Description
1. Part of a Larger DEI
Culture and Ecosystem of
Programs
VE has a D&I committee focused on sustaining and creating
programs/opportunities, The ecosystem includes many
programs, “We recognized that ... there was no single, you
know, silver bullet. There was not one thing that was going to
help you address all these issues.” (FG, PI, SI, ED, ID)
2. Targeted Phase of
Employee Career
VE identified a particular phase of the leadership journey
where individuals seemed to encounter the most challenges
and choices in their career progression. (FG, PI, SI, ED, ID)
3.Clearly stated Program
Purpose
Introductory email to participants states, “To identify, support
and develop high potential individuals … [who] have the
potential…to become senior members and future leaders of the
firm. The purpose of this program is to provide significant
resources to help aid in your career development.” (FG, PI, SI,
ED, ID)
4. Assessment of the
program and Tracking
Results
Program surveys and retention/promotion data. (FG, ID, ED)
5. A partner at VE
champions and shepherds
the program
A senior partner leads the work and collaborates with talent
development and external consultants. (FG, ID, ED)
6.Nomination and Selection
Process
Four-part nomination form includes questions such as, “Why
is the sponsorship program right for this individual, now?”
Selection phase designed for review, dialogue, and vote to
ensure equitable consideration. (FG, ID)
7. Senior Level Leader as
Sponsor Committed to Meet
Regularly
The protégés are intentionally paired with a VE senior level
leader, often 2-3 steps higher in the organizational hierarchy.
“A very conscious, matching … making sure that there is a
good reason … a good personality match… [and]
organizational [match].” (FG Member) (FG, PI, SI, ED, ID)
8. Coaching Provided by
External Consultant
“[The sponsor] understands the financial world and political
situations. [The coach] understands … biases, work-life
balance … so together it’s actually greater…one of them
would not be sufficient.” (Protégé ) (FG, PI, SI, ED, ID)

71
Key Features
of the Program
Description
9. Leadership Assessment A 360-review assessment with feedback from protégé,
supervisor, peers or collaborators, and direct reports. (FG, PI,
SI, ED, ID)
10. Coaching Sessions for
Protégés and Sponsors
Originally conceived for protégés only. Program now includes
coaching time for sponsors. (FG, PI, SI, ID, ED)
11. Cohort Group Sessions /
Build a community
Orientation and interim sessions designed and facilitated by
external coach(es). (FG, ID, PI, SI)

Note: Data Source Code: Focus Group Members (FG), Protégé Interview (PI), Sponsor Interview
(SI), Internal Document (ID) and External Document (ED)

Post-Launch Realizations and Adaptations
The design phase culminated with the 2019 program launch. This section relies on focus
group data and document analysis to summarize major realizations and adaptations since the
inception of the program but does not include suggestions or findings from the present study.
Later in this chapter, research question three explores the continued evolution of the program
beyond the current study and includes analysis from all data sets. This section begins by
reporting two concerns raised during the genesis phase and how these concerns dissipated
through post-launch observations of actual program experience. The findings continue with a
synthesis of several post-launch realizations and insights from the leadership team, and finally a
summary of program adaptations already implemented since the program launch.
Two focus group members recalled concerns raised during the creation of the program
both of which diminished as program implementation gained momentum. One concern centered
on formalized sponsorship falling short of their past experiences with more organic sponsorship
relationships. During our focus group session, which took place near the end of program year-

72
three, one member who also served as a sponsor put this concern to rest and confirmed how
formal sponsorship helps mitigate the “luck factor”:
Yes, this is effective. And, frankly…I’ve just seen it happen…it really helps their careers.
…having seen now the three cohorts…some of those people … would have naturally had
some [sponsors] … but, the majority would not have, and this has provided that platform.
The second concern revolved around potential negative perceptions from employees not chosen
to participate. A focus group member offered an example of how VE communicates directly with
individuals who are high-performing and already have a sponsor or visibility at the senior-level,
to guard against such misunderstandings around participant selection. Additionally, rather than
causing complaints or division in the company, employees have often reacted with interest about
future opportunities. One member of the leadership focus group described the common reaction
as, "I want to talk to my manager about, ‘Is this something I could be a part of next year or what
can I do to be a part?’ So, it’s been more, I think, of a motivator.”
Observing the program in action over the past three years, VE’s leaders and the
consultant also reflected on several important realizations. First, they explained their discovery
that the leadership training and coaching provided to protégés could be beneficial for all new
managers. Intertwined with this realization, they also described the idea of expanding
sponsorship program access in general, as one member articulated:
In the past, we've always only looked at diverse talent…very clearly defined. But I think
if we're going to talk about being an inclusive culture, I think there's opportunity to
broaden that definition….that may mean a White male may need this program and I think
that's okay. Will they be the focal point? Probably not. But…opening it up to allow for

73
that person who is deserving and needs a sponsorship…is one of the enhancements we
made this year.
A second insight the leaders highlighted was the importance of clear communication about the
goals of the sponsorship program and nominating process, to deepen supervisors’ understanding
of which candidates might be the best fit for the program. Third, since the sponsors were rarely
the protégés immediate supervisor, VE leaders contemplated ideas for how they might improve
the program interface between managers and sponsors. A fourth realization arrived through the
candid requests from sponsors, indicating their support for the program and seeking more growth
and development to better perform their sponsorship roles. A focus group member shared,
“When the sponsors are…raising their hands saying, ‘We want more growth and development
and support [for ourselves].’ I mean, you couldn’t ask for anything more than that.” Another
realization described was the idea of sponsorship as a means for, “Building connectivity between
those at the senior and those at mid-level across departments, across regions….that connectivity
is important, especially as the firm grows.” Finally, the focus group members described
witnessing the effect of a sponsor’s experience could have on changing leadership style, which
brought to light the possible far-reaching ripple effect of the program. This effect will be
examined further in RQ2.
Many of these realizations led to specific program adaptations noted by the focus group
or during analysis of internal documents. The program now includes coaching support for
sponsors through both group meetings and individual sessions described by one member as, “A
time for these senior people… in a confidential conversation with the coach to say, ‘You know,
how do I do this? Or I'm not really sure.’” Additionally, sponsors and managers now have
periodic check-ins to enhance the interface and coherence of their overlapping roles. Another

74
adaptation implemented was a revised nomination form. Comparative analysis of redacted
internal nomination forms for participants in 2021 with participants for 2022 showed
modifications and additions to the form led to an increased emphasis on leadership potential and
a sharper focus on why sponsorship is important for the nominee precisely at this time. Other
adaptations in progress during the time of the present study included new ideas for a
complimentary program focused on manager training. “Outside of this program, we are…going
to run a manager boot camp and launch a manager framework for next year.” A focus group
member also shared that VE added programs with the consultant to do a deeper dive with more
common issues of leadership transition or skill development revealed by protégé experiences in
the first few years.
Discussion RQ1
The study of the VE sponsorship program’s initial stages of design and implementation
led to several findings that underscore the organization’s authentic commitment to DEI. The
evidence suggests that VE’s purposeful exploration of needs and solutions, as well as the
intricate design of program features, places a high priority on the growth and retention of
talented individuals from underrepresented groups. The five factors that led to the genesis of the
program show the importance of organizational values and culture, as well as the individuals
who embody these values to enact change.
The program design team incorporated principles and features from the researcher’s
review of the literature, including studies reported in research journals, self-published white
papers, or business magazine articles (Accenture, 2020; Catalyst, 2011; Huston et al., 2019;
Paddison, 2013; Quinn et al., 2020). The design of the sponsorship program also aligned with
portions of the conceptual framework for this study. Principles of SCT are present, including

75
providing opportunities for modeling behavior from sponsor or coach, reflection and self-
regulation for the protégés through the 360 review and goal setting, and nurturing a work
environment that communicates employees are valued and have a future at VE. The intention to
equip individuals with the tools of visibility and development for navigating the leadership
labyrinth are especially evident.
Additionally, findings may prove beneficial to other individuals or organizations
contemplating a sponsorship program and could serve as a road map to support initial planning
and design. Perhaps of special significance from the findings is the naming of the “luck factor”
to describe what occurs with non-programmatic or organic sponsorship. One of the enduring
debates around sponsorship is whether it is effective when the relationships are not organic. The
acknowledgement and articulation that organic sponsorship always contains an element of luck,
reframes the debate as an issue of equity and highlights the importance of replacing “luck” with
purposeful and planned leadership pathways for all individuals.
RQ2: What is the lived experience of the protégé and how has the sponsorship program
influenced their work and leadership opportunities?
Understanding protégés’ experiences and perspectives before, during, and after
participating in the program was essential in this case-study. Since the bulk of their protégé
experiences occurred during events and interactions across the year, this section received the
most attention in data analysis. Each section begins with a description of the analytic frame used
for coding and explaining that portion of the journey. The analytic approach used for each
section was aligned with the level of data complexity, ranging from a comparison between the
program’s intended design and protégés’ reported experiences which was readily discernable; to

76
more complex and nuanced analyses of participants’ journeys drawing on the study’s conceptual
framework.
Protégés rated how beneficial the sponsorship program was during and after completion
as part of a pre-interview questionnaire. The questionnaire results provided a uniform response
from each protégé which represented their unfiltered voice. Eleven of the thirteen participants
rated the program as “very beneficial,” one as “beneficial” and one did not return the survey.
Initial coding and preliminary analysis of qualitative data from the protégé interviews revealed
differences in the protégé experiences which led to deeper exploration.
Protégés’ learning and growth experiences were analyzed through the lens of social
cognitive theory (SCT). Three thematic protégé clusters emerged based on opportunities
described, interactions with sponsor and coach, protégés’ actions, and the endpoint of their
sponsorship journey, which the researcher likened as analogous to a hike. Building on the hiking
analogy, the terms summit experience, timberline experience, and scenic overlook experience
were chosen to characterize protégés’ journeys and differentiate the results they achieved.
Destinations may differ in the distance traveled, but each endpoint in the metaphor could still be
classified as a very beneficial experience, which allows protégé ratings and endpoint achieved to
be neither mutually exclusive nor dependent ways of describing experiences.
Table 6 describes the experience of each cluster through the hiking metaphor and
indicates the researcher’s placement of each protégé. A detailed explanation of the analysis that
informed the classification occurs later during the description of their individual year-long
experiences. Due to the complexity of tracing interactions between the SCT elements of person,
behavior, and environment, the researcher identified three of the 13 protégés who were

77
borderline, between two categories of classification. In each of these cases, the researcher
rounded down the individual case since evidence was not strong enough to round up.

Table 6
Categorization of the Protégés’ Achieved Destination in Mountain Hike Metaphor
Description of Achieved Destination Number of Protégés
Summit: Mountain top experience. Experienced all intended
benefits and goals for the sponsorship program.

Visibility: Expansive 360 visibility.

Defining Characteristics: Exemplified by protégés’ commitment
to prioritize the program regardless of challenging
environmental factors, the strategic and transparent approach to
the interactions with sponsor and coach, and the high level of
agency and candor demonstrated by the protégé.

Four Protégés
Timberline: Just short of the summit. Experienced nearly all
intended benefits and goals of the sponsorship program.

Visibility: Emerging to expansive visibility.

Defining Characteristics: Exemplified by significant milestones
but also a few obstacles. All members exhibited characteristics
of personal agency and utilized time with their sponsor and
coach, but each protégé in this group described experiences that
fell short of their ideal due to environmental factors beyond
their control, varying degrees of intentional use of the coach
and sponsor sessions, or a developing understanding of roles.
Five Protégés
Scenic Overlook: First significant view from higher elevation.
Experienced some of the intended benefits and goals of the
sponsorship program.

Visibility: A window of visibility.

Defining Characteristics: Exemplified by some satisfying
experiences but also significant complications, including
external environmental challenges beyond their control that
inhibited progress, underutilized time with coaches or sponsors,
developing understanding of roles, and only a few examples of
agency with regards to the program demonstrated by protégés.
Four Protégés

78
The findings for RQ2 two follow a narrative format, tracing the journey of the protégés
beginning with their experiences as “chosen ones” for the sponsorship program. The findings
continue with mapping out their individual growth journey, the initial portion of the year-long
experience. The next section tracks the protégés’ experiences across the year, analyzed through
the lens of the conceptual framework, and includes challenges encountered and new leadership
tools and skills acquired. The narrative concludes with protégé reflections and advice for future
cohorts. A brief synthesis of findings for this research question closes the section.
Part 1: The Chosen Ones
The protégés’ journey began with the nomination and selection process. This section
includes protégés’ initial reactions to selection as well as their prior understanding of the
program. Additionally, in many interviews, protégé’s descriptions of their previous leadership
experiences provided a window into the path traveled prior to program participation. Two
significant goals of VE’s sponsorship program were to replace the “luck factor” with intentional
sponsorship for employee development and communicate that senior leadership saw potential in
rising leaders. As an analytic frame for this stage, the researcher compared the intended goals of
the program with the protégés’ perspective on the experience to reveal the alignment between
espoused goals and theories in use.
Nomination and Selection
Participant access to VE’s sponsorship program resulted from a nomination and selection
process. Since protégés did not apply, most did not realize they were being considered until
informed by a supervisor. Of the 13 protégés interviewed in this study, four protégés knew they
were nominated by a supervisor, four protégés speculated but were not sure, and five did not
know or share this information. The program allowed nominations from senior employees, but

79
the interview responses suggested protégés did not regard as important the detail of who
nominated them. What appeared to matter, based on their recollections, was being selected.
Protégés reported feeling a range of emotions, with ten out of 13 choosing positive
descriptors including, “Thrilled” (Sage), “Humbled” (Joshua), “Excited…really looking forward
to the program” (Taylor), and that it was “Recognition for the work I had done” (Jade), or “A
vote of confidence” (Indigo). The three remaining protégés appreciated being nominated but
described feeling, “Indifferent” (Kai) or expressed “This is going to be another thing that takes
up loads of my time” (Camila). When examining these quotes in context, the researcher noted
possible explanations for these less enthusiastic responses. One of the less enthusiastic protégés
initially, recalled not understanding that part of selection meant VE considered the participant a
high performer, “I don’t think that was well enough impressed on me” (Camila). The other two
were waiting to form opinions until they had more program experience. In contrast, those who
reacted positively were either openly curious to learn what the experience would bring or
appreciated VE’s investment in their growth. One protégé explained that it “made me feel much
more comfortable… in my path forward…because I knew I had that help from the coaching…the
support from the partners” (Jade). All protégés included in their recollections language that
indicated some understanding that program selection indicated (1) senior leadership recognition
of their performance and (2) leadership potential, as well as (3) the goal to provide support on
that journey. However, only four protégés made mention of all three, and not all with certainty.
Table 7 analyzes the level of congruence between the language of program goals and the initial
perceptions across the study participants by taking the number of protégés commenting on the
topic and dividing by the total of 13 participants. Each goal is compared to a representative quote

80
from the protégés followed by the number of protégés who related a similar perspective on the
topic.

Table 7
Comparison of Sponsorship Program Goal and Protégé Understanding
Program Goals
(Initial 2018 & Adapted 2022)
Level of
Congruence
(n = 13)
Example Quotes from
Protégés by Topic / Number of Protégés
Identify, develop, support and
retain high performing and high
potential individuals from
underrepresented groups
(Concepts in 2018 goals)

Identify, develop, support and
retain high performing and high
potential individuals.
(Concepts in 2022 goals)
a
Moderate
(38%)
5/13

Moderate
(54%)
7/13

Moderate
(70%)
9/13

High (92%)
12/13
"Springboard to minorities and women
who might be underrepresented…in a
male dominated industry” (Joshua). (5)
a

“Cultivate our next generation of leaders"
(Ramsey). (7)

“Viewed as a positive [sign]… by the
company who wants to develop me and
retain me” (Nola). (9)

“I knew it was a development program. I
knew there'd be some resource
associated with it” (Dakota). (12)

a
Toward the end of the interview session, protégés had the opportunity to present suggestions for
improvement which are addressed in detail in RQ3. However, the topic of full inclusion is a
program adaptation VE has already made based on their own observations, as evidenced in the
goals listed in the introductory email for the 2022 cohort and findings for research question one.

81
Pre-Program Leadership Journey
Another espoused goal of VE’s program was to mitigate the “luck factor” and provide
equitable access to leadership pathways and development opportunities. VE’s leadership team
acknowledged that some participants in the sponsorship program may have enjoyed a smooth
career path or already found a sponsor, and nine of the 13 protégés articulated that they expected
to or already experienced accelerated career progress prior to program participation. Comments
included, “I’ve been developing the career track I want,” or “A pretty regular occurrence to be
promoted.” One protégé remarked “I felt like people wanted me to rise through organizations
sometimes faster than I anticipated.” However, four protégés described different degrees of
frustrating barriers or surprising delays. One shared, “I was trying to get through this wall of ‘no
recognition’...they were not recognizing me as a peer,” and another acknowledged the
importance of self-advocacy, “I think women do have to fight for it…you have to present that
case for yourself to be promoted.” These examples suggest that VE’s sponsorship program
provided the opportunity for leaders to recognize not only employees whose self-described
journeys have followed an expected path, but also employees who have experienced challenges
perhaps kept private or unnoticed by an immediate supervisor.
Consistent with the program goal of development, protégés almost universally
acknowledged and appreciated (12 out of 13) the critical importance of development
opportunities specific to new leaders. One protégé expressed excitement at the opportunity to
work on, “those areas that historically I knew that I had to work on” (Jordan), and another
appreciated that VE would, “Give me the tools to actually be able to grow into a leader at the
firm” (Indigo). The use of “tools” in their description indicated the far-reaching potential to
acquire or refine skills, competencies, or mindsets during the program. References to VE’s

82
investment of resources also demonstrated knowledge of senior leaders’ desire to retain
individuals who were a good fit and valuable to the organization. Each protégé’s leadership
journey was unique, but as a collective group, their experiences illustrated all the factors the
program sought to address through providing access to development opportunities for mid-level
leaders, a high-level sponsor to help discover and illuminate leadership paths, and support during
this critical juncture in their careers. Protégés who encountered obstacles had a venue to find
solutions. One protégé, initially skeptical of the time investment, shared a reframed perspective
of the opportunity adopted prior to orientation, “What could I learn and how could I improve
myself? How can I…progress on and become more important and senior in the organization?”
(Camila).
Overall, the side-by-side analysis of intended goals and protégé reported experiences
revealed a range of alignment between espoused goals and theories in use. The strongest
alignment occurred in the development of skills and the resources provided to support growth.
Also strong was VE’s goal and protégés’ corresponding recognition of the company’s desire to
retain high performers. Less alignment appeared in the clear communication of a long-term
career path or a place in senior leadership. Once selection into the program took place, protégés
entered the next phase of their program journey, which included orientation, a 360-leadership
review, and initial individual meetings with their sponsor and coach.
Part 2: Mapping the Journey
Selection into the program placed protégés at the venture starting point, analogous to the
trailhead of a mountain hiking path. An experienced career coach and program consultant would
serve as a guide, orienting the cohort to possibilities of the expedition ahead. Each protégé would
have a unique experience on the sponsorship journey, but their paths would intersect with each

83
other at periodic cohort gatherings for collective learning and support. This section begins by
differentiating the roles of sponsor and mentor, a critical distinction to guide protégé and sponsor
actions throughout the program trek. Next, as an analytic frame for this stage, the researcher
identifies and traces connections between the protégé goal-setting and sponsor/coach interactions
and the SCT elements of environment, behavior, and person that emerged during the program
launch. Table 8 describes how each SCT element was applied in the study and outlines the stage
of the protégé’s journey where the element was prominent.

Table 8
Description and Location of Social Cognitive Theory Elements
Element in
Social Cognitive
Theory
Description and Application in
Context of the Study
Stage of Protégé Journey
Where SCT element was
prominent
Environment The physical, social, and cultural
surroundings of an individual. Includes
the environment created by VE’s
sponsorship program as well as external
environmental factors
The Chosen Ones (S1)
Mapping the Journey (S2)
Traveling the Journey (S3)
Behavior Learning can take place through
observation of behavior, either directly
through observing behaviors modeled
by a coach or sponsor, or indirectly
through storytelling or questioning to
guide problem-solving
Mapping the Journey (S2)
Traveling the Journey (S3)
Person Individual learner who brings personal
agency to the sponsor-protégé
relationship. This study specifically
tracked protégés’ self-regulation (goal-
setting and initiative) and self-
reflection.
Mapping the Journey (S2)
Traveling the Journey (S3)
Reflecting on the Journey (S4)

84
Sponsor vs. Mentor
As part of orientation, VE program leaders set aside time to clarify the pivotal
distinctions between a mentor and a sponsor and solidify the meaning of sponsor and
sponsorship for all program participants. The researcher interviewed the program design
consultant (a member of the focus group) concerning the flow of orientation and the documents
created for the session. The definitions and distinctions between mentorship and sponsorship
were featured early in the slide-deck presentation. VE’s internal program overview document
included their articulated vision of sponsorship, but confidentiality agreements prevent sharing
the verbatim text. The researcher confirmed this overview document contained all the key
hallmarks of sponsorship mentioned earlier in this study’s literature review. During the
interviews, protégés also revealed what they understood about mentorship and sponsorship from
their program orientation experience. Explanations varied but only one protégé did not see a
distinction between the two roles. The most consistent explanation was the concept of an
advocate at the leadership table:
That was one of the great pieces…I got day one from the program, which we were all
given…in their view, a sponsor was somebody who would actively champion for you….
being the person who's at a decision-making table and making sure that they're
advocating for you while there. (Indigo)
The sponsor interviews provided additional insight on their perspectives and understanding of
the role. Though there remains some confusion about how the sponsor role comes to life in the
day to day, one sponsor articulated the broad scope of the role:
I saw [my sponsor role] as how do I utilize my own influence within the organization to
help provide exposure for that person, to help think through actual advancement levels and

85
who needs to…be part of that discussion and how do I tee that up? How can I be a
champion for the individual within our organization? Certainly, help her in terms of
thinking through the things that she's been talking about with the coach, because from a
company cultural standpoint, I may have a better read of that…. Predominantly…my role
is really to help open doors, build bridges, and provide opportunities for exposure - say her
name in the room when she's not there. (Vivienne)
Separate orientation sessions for protégés and sponsors provided a dedicated space to gain
collective understanding of the roles each would play over the next 11 months. Following
orientation, the next step focused on a leadership assessment and review process for each
protégé.
Leadership Circle Assessment and Goal-Setting
The consultant group partnering in VE’s sponsorship program utilizes the Leadership
Circle Profile (LCP), a 360-assessment that provides the protégé comprehensive information
about their leadership profile, including feedback gathered from peers and supervisors
(Leadership Circle, n.d.). The LCP measures various conceptions of leadership: creative
competencies, long-term focused and correlated with leadership effectiveness; reactive
tendencies, short-term focused; and a leader’s beliefs that influence behavior. The assessment
provided opportunities for the protégé to self-reflect on the data gathered and better understand
how they are perceived by others. For some of the protégés, the assessment also informed their
program goals. Both the level of reflection and the self-regulation demonstrated in the individual
goal-setting process connected to activities of agency as described in the “person” element of
SCT.

86
Based on their time of participation, protégés were recalling activities ranging from eight
months to nearly three years prior to the interviews. Ten protégés explicitly named the 360-
assessment in their interview sessions. A review of protégé goal-setting recollections showed six
protégés mentioned goals that referenced a finding from their 360-assessment. The remaining
seven shared goals aligned with a specific challenge they faced, gaining exposure and visibility
in the company, or adapting to mid-level leadership. Three protégés reported that the outcome of
the 360-assessment came as no surprise. However, other comments showed a more significant
depth of reflection prompted by the activity:
I learned a lot…the way I've been viewing things and doing things…it's worked for me in
my whole career, but maybe as I take the next step, I need to change…certain things. And
it really came out when we did the 360 review. (Ramsey)
The reflection and goal setting fostered by the LCP 360-asssessment connected to the person
element of SCT. The concept of personal agency includes the properties of reflecting on
information to set goals and self-regulating to choose a goal. While these reflections and goals
occurred in the cognitive processes of the individual, during early coaching sessions, the coach
and the protégé reviewed the profile as a joint-reflection exercise. Descriptions of these early
joint-reflection sessions with the coach exemplified the bi-directional influence between the
person and the behavior elements of the SCT triad.
Early Coaching Sessions
Including a coach in the design of the sponsorship program created a connection to the
behavior element of SCT. The early sessions with the coach featured hallmarks of intentional
planning for a meaningful reflective dialogue—establishing a relationship, intentional reflective
prompts, and goal-setting. Nine protégés mentioned their goal-setting and reflection meetings

87
with the coach and six protégés recounted specific examples of the reflective dialogue that
guided the process, “Well, we first kind of started by doing the assessment and creating the plan
that came out of that assessment, to talking through what it all meant and how to interpret it and
things to focus on” (Dakota). The coach also seeded ideas and modeled how the protégé could
synthesize the data, “They created this … circle chart.… And then looking at that chart, they're
like, ‘Well, areas of improvement could be these two sections and you can just focus on those
two sections with your … sponsor’” (Taylor).
The coach’s behavior not only guided the reflection toward decision-making, but also
modeled deeper introspection. In one instance the reflective discussion included assisting the
protégé to analyze the LCP results through a holistic view of experiences, “[The coach] was
digging into … details … understanding what makes me tick … how my personal background
has shaped who I am and how that then correlated to the feedback I got on my 360” (Sage). In
another instance, the facilitated reflection followed a path discovered by the coach noticing a gap
in the feedback from different groups of individuals:
The more we looked into it [we] realized that … sometimes the people I direct report to,
because I do a lot, I don't really tell them what's going on … keeping them in the loop.
And maybe they're not seeing a strategic thinker … They're seeing someone who's able to
take on jobs and responsibilities and run with it and get it done. But what about long
term? You know, let's look at the leadership, let's look at some critical thinking. Let's
look at strategic skills. So that's a thing that I didn't think about before, where looking at
the whole 360 degree really opened up my eyes.” (Ramsey)
The joint-reflection and modeling of goal-discovery exemplified the behavior component of the
SCT triad interacting with individual-learner component. The coach’s modeling and facilitative

88
actions illustrated the behavior component while the protégé represented the individual, who
may learn and demonstrate stronger reflection and goal-discovery skills in the future. The
sponsor role presented yet another connection to the behavior component of SCT, which began
during the introductory sessions with the protégé.
Introductory Meetings with Sponsor
The protégés’ initial meetings with their sponsors marked the final step in mapping out
their sponsorship journey and provided an opportunity to set the stage for candor and trust. The
behavior component of SCT emphasizes learning through modeling, which requires
opportunities to observe a behavior or hear about an experience, so a more open relationship
could provide richer opportunities for learning. Tracing the behavior component of SCT showed
less frequent and more subtle connections to sponsors’ modeling behavior in these sessions than
in the introductory sessions with the coach. Nine, protégés already had a working relationship
with their sponsors, while the four others were either meeting the sponsor for the first time or
only knew the sponsor as high-level partners at VE.
The researcher analyzed the protégés’ description of the sessions and discovered three
themes for the activities: introductory dialogues; general goal or 360-review discussion; and
future-focused strategic discussion of goals or needs. Sponsor and protégé level of familiarity did
not seem to dictate the topic of the first meeting. Table 9 presents representative quotes for each
theme, one from a new relationship and one from an established relationship.

89
Table 9
Themes of Initial Meeting Activities
Introductory Dialogue General Goal or LCP-360
Goal Dialogue
Future Focused
Strategic Dialogue
“The first meeting, we sort of
talked about what we
wanted the relationship to
look like, how often we
wanted to meet, just caught
up on how things [were]
already going.” (Indigo)
“[My sponsor] really reached
out … it's a bit awkward
when you don't know
someone … she was
absolutely brilliant. … We
used to have chats maybe
… twice, every two or three
weeks…short chats,”
(Camila)
“I was … developing that
immediate transparency.
You're … showing all of
your vulnerabilities …your
360-assessment, where
people are critiquing and
not necessarily in a bad
way, but it is still … an
open-book scenario right
off the bat.” (Sage)

“I came in [and] said, ‘I think
this is my problem. This is
my previous year's reviews
… communicating to me
[what’s] missing. This is
what I have done … to
address [it and] that’s my
plan … What do you
think?’” (Tori)
“I used the opportunity to
meet with [my sponsors] to
kind of refine that idea and
try to find ways to get in
front of different partners.”
(Kai)

“It was pretty early on… [we
discussed] Should I let
something go so I can …
have more time to …
elevate and move up … so
that I'm identified as … the
senior person [on the
team]? … that was really
helpful. (Nola)

Protégés observed problem-solving, advanced planning, initiating new relationships, and
listening to the ideas of others in the behavior of their sponsors. One protégé made a connection
to an observed behavior from this stage to a specific adaptation in their own leadership style. As
modeled by the sponsor from the beginning of the year and throughout the program, the protégé
expressed, “Good leadership … it’s really important to be giving of your time … that’s what I
learned” (Camila).
Individual differences in the protégés’ agency surfaced at this stage of planning. During
interviews, five protégés’ descriptions contained self-initiated, proactive behaviors while the
other protégés depicted sponsor-initiated or guided interactions. Subtle variations were observed

90
in the behavior element of SCT, either based on protégé agency or the personal leadership style
of the sponsor. The nature of sponsorship pairs in the program covered a broad range from pre-
existing to new relationships, which also introduced slight disparities in the environment
influence of SCT. The next section continues with this SCT lens and examines the protégés'
year-long sponsorship journey.
Part 3: Traveling the Journey
With introductions made to fellow travelers, goals established, and individual paths
mapped out, the protégés began their sponsorship journeys equipped with guidance and
assistance from sponsor and coach. The findings for this section begin by identifying three
protégé clusters that emerged from the data analysis, defined by the endpoint of each protégé’s
journey. The researcher describes the experiences of each protégé cluster and offers examples of
the SCT elements which supported or undermined protégé progress during the year-long
sponsorship experience. Woven in the narrative are the challenges, successes, and obstacles
encountered by the protégés. Finally, the section examines the acquisition of the tools for
navigating the leadership labyrinth, a pivotal part of the conceptual framework.
Learning and Growth Experiences Through the Lens of Social Cognitive Theory
The researcher employed the lens of SCT as an analytic frame to examine the various
influences on protégé learning and growth during the program and identified three thematic
clusters based on the endpoint of each protégé’s year-long journey. To repeat, the researcher
used the descriptive labels of summit, timberline, and scenic overlook to characterize each
cluster’s experience and differentiate the endpoints they achieved (see Table 6). The narrative for
each protégé cluster interweaves evidence uncovered for the specific SCT interactions that aided
or inhibited the protégés’ ascent and progress. The environment element included factors of the

91
program design and broader work environment. The behavior element included the modeling of
behavior by sponsor or coach in real time or through storytelling. The person element focused on
individual agency, specifically self-regulation and reflection. Unique, subtle aspects exist within
each group and more obvious differences contribute to understanding the three diverging paths
among the 13 protégés’ in this study. Pseudonyms have been removed to protect confidentiality
in this smaller cluster of individuals but a summary of the distribution of quotes is provided in
each section.
Summit Expedition. Based on the analysis of perspectives and recollections shared
during interviews, the researcher determined that four protégés reached the summit of the
sponsorship program experience. The summit experience was exemplified by the protégés’
commitment to prioritize the program regardless of challenging environmental factors, the
strategic and transparent approach to the interactions with sponsor and coach, and the high level
of agency and candor demonstrated by the protégés. Each protégé may have leveraged some
aspects of the program more than others, but the cumulative experience determined their
placement in the summit cluster. The evidence provided in protégé quotes includes two to four
quotes from each member of the group.
All four individuals in the summit cluster attributed helpful interactions to both the
sponsor and coach roles, consistent with the environment of support intended in the program
design. The sponsors fulfilled their advocate role by presenting opportunities or speaking up for
the protégé when needed. One summit protégé experienced challenges in the broader
organization environment including struggles against gender-bias. Nevertheless, the protégé
persisted and enlisted the assistance of the sponsor as an advocate, “I needed the sponsor to get
… acceptance [from my peers]. That's exactly what [the sponsor] helped with.” The program

92
design shaped this environment of support. Another protégé noted, “[The sponsor] reached out to
me quite a bit just to say, ‘Hey, you know, X, Y, Z's opportunity is coming up. … would that be
something you’re interested in? And I think you’d be a good fit for that.’” The program also
provided an external coach, who offered support in a confidential space during the transition to
leadership. One of the four protégés described the coach as someone who “does not have any
direct bearing on … my role or my promotion cycle … if you're willing … you can … figure out
what's working, what's not working, and … dig deep into, into your leadership.”
Interactions with coach and sponsor also presented an authentic context where the
protégé could learn through observing behavior, a key element of the SCT triad. One protégé
mentioned the sponsor “talking through aspects of [the sponsor’s] career that maybe I'm
struggling with at the moment that [the sponsor] could help me problem solve.” Often the coach
served as a thought partner and modeled for the protégé how to process feedback to glean
meaningful insights while reading both well-written comments or unkindly worded feedback,
showing the protégé, “‘Oh, this is great. This is constructive.’ Other stuff … [The coach said,]
‘Disregard the words’ trying to look for the meaning behind the words.”
The most prominent factor that emerged through the researcher’s analysis of the summit
cluster was the notable degree of agency evidenced in the protégés’ self-regulation and self-
reflection connected to the program experience. Demonstrating self-regulation, all four
mentioned regular checks on progress or discussion around their goals with the sponsor or coach.
Protégés brought candor to these sessions, “I kind of just jumped in. I told [the sponsor] I was
willing to be transparent but that I wasn’t going to sugarcoat anything.” Similarly, the summit
group shared a commitment to maximize the time being invested with their sponsors: “I set up a
calendar invite so that we would speak, I think maybe once every six weeks.” Individuals in this

93
cluster also described being ready to “take the lead [to] get to where you want to go or it's not
going to take you as far as you'd like it to.”
Also connected to agency, the protégés showed significant depth of reflection on their
interactions with others: “I'm framing better. I understand it's not only about me, [but also] the
perceiving side sometimes,” and “Something I learned in the sponsorship program … in order to
make progress, you have to be open and be expressive. So, you may not always hear what you
want to hear, but it's better to talk about it.” In addition, members of the summit group applied
what they learned to new contexts when reflecting on their experiences and observations:
“Allowing people to take on opportunities that others afforded you…. Things that we saw certain
people doing and others not, and something I've now tried to emulate within the practice as
well.” Finally, one protégé described the experience as “transformational for me because it
allowed me to … connect the dots for myself to see if you want something, you have to plan to
get it and you have to basically make it known, that's what you want.” Overall, the researcher’s
analysis showed that experiences of the summit group appeared to meet or exceed the intended
goals for the sponsorship program.
Timberline Expedition. The timberline group was characterized by unique combinations
of experiences for five of the 13 protégés that led to a very successful journey but finished short
of the summit. The protégés in this cluster described both milestones and obstacles in their
sponsorship journey which positioned them at this timberline stage of the year-long program
experience. Challenging environmental factors beyond their control inhibited progress for some,
while varying degrees of the intentional use of the coach and sponsor sessions or a developing
understanding of the roles of sponsor and protégé slowed progress for others. All members of the
group exhibited characteristics of personal agency and utilized time with their sponsor and

94
coach, but each protégé in this group described experiences that fell short of their ideal. The
evidence provided in protégé quotes includes two to four quotes from each member of the group
and one quote from a sponsor interview.
Similar to the summit group, the protégés in the timberline group recognized the
environmental support provided by the two roles of coach and sponsor built into the program
design: “[The coach] has a lot of experience with a lot of people's issues. …what's holding them
back or … just bumps in the roads … so, yeah, I opened up on everything … which was good.”
Protégés shared empowering moments and new opportunities facilitated by the sponsor such as,
“Advocacy for me as well, just like with … different initiatives that were going on within the
firm,” and one specific instance when the sponsor intervened to ensure the protégé could
contribute during a meeting: “One of the other [members] … probably didn't hear me, [and]
continued. … then my sponsor jumped in … ‘Did you want to say something?’ And that really
helped me because I could bring my point across.” Two protégés in the timberline group did not
report any new opportunities specific to the program.
For this group, one challenge that continued to surface for both sponsor and protégé was
a less than clear understanding of the sponsor role and how to assist in specific circumstances, “I
felt in my case my sponsor wasn't quite clear on how they could help me either.” This sentiment
around lack of clarity for how to execute parts of the role in specific contexts echoed in all the
interviews with sponsors: “I heard that from another sponsor as well, it was hard to figure out
those opportunities” (sponsor). One sponsor and protégé brainstormed ideas and found a
promising option by adopting a new perspective and thinking outside the box. Navigating
dynamics in meetings also created challenges for protégés’ projects at times but were often
viewed as learning experiences by the participants.

95
Since the protégés in the timberline group actively utilized the sessions with the sponsor
and coach, all recounted instances of learning through the behavior modeled by the sponsor or
coach. One protégé recalled observing and learning, “how [the sponsor] interacts in those
meetings … keeps [their] cool.” Another member learned about the different style of interaction:
“Obviously different approaches work with different counterparties.… It was just interesting to
see the … merits of a completely different style that you might not expect to be as engaging, but
oftentimes is more so.” In another case, the coach modeled the skill of reframing with a protégé:
“The coach definitely helped me reflect on [the circumstances] … and not just see … the
challenges … but also the opportunities in that.” One protégé, who also provided examples of the
way the coach modeled behavior, expressed the desire to maximize the coaching opportunity: “[I
was] so busy, I'd go into the coaching session with this guilt feeling like I should have some
great questions and … ways to maximize this opportunity and just feeling like a little bit at a
loss.”
The group that reached the timberline exhibited personal agency, self-regulation, and
reflection, to varying degrees. One example of self-regulation occurred when a protégé applied
feedback she received in the program to then monitor and change a specific behavior:
“Throughout the year [I] made a real effort to share more opinions more often actively, without
being asked.” Another aspect of self-regulation is goal setting; one protégé recognized for the
project that, “if not for it being a goal and an objective that was set out right from the beginning
[it might not have been completed].” Self-regulation can also help initiate proactive behavior,
exemplified by one protégé who continued to reach out to VE connections made through the
program and ask, “What stuff do you need help on that we can help with, or I can help with? And
what stuff do we need that maybe we could borrow your resources for?” Another protégé

96
actively reflected on learning to take more initiative in a mid-level leadership role: “Rather than
expecting someone else … in a higher leadership position to … figure out a way to make it
better. …Sometimes you have to create that process.” In another example of reflection leading to
more agentic behaviors, a protégé shared, “Opportunities have come because I've kind of seized
it myself or been more … proactive because of the way my thinking has slightly changed to
some extent.” While stopping just short of the summit, the researcher’s analysis showed the
individuals in the timberline group still experienced nearly all the intended benefits of the
sponsorship program enabling them to reach a meaningful stage in the sponsorship journey.
Scenic Overlook Expedition. Four of the 13 protégés shared a mixture of satisfying
experiences but also significant complications which brought them to the scenic overlook as the
endpoint for their program journey. Protégés expressed gratitude to their sponsors and
acknowledged the welcomed vote of confidence in them as a high potential individual at VE.
When compared to the timberline cluster, the scenic overlook experience was typified by the
combination of more external challenges in the environment that inhibited progress and led to
underutilized time with coaches or sponsors, and more limited agency with respect to the
program demonstrated by protégés. The evidence provided in protégé quotes includes three to
five quotes from each member of the group.
Individuals in the scenic overlook cluster knew the program design provided support
through both a coach and a sponsor but did not recall as many examples of the program design in
action as the other two groups. Every protégé mentioned their sponsor was willing to make
introductions and connections for them. Just one protégé shared a detailed story of advocacy,
recalling numerous ways the sponsor sought to advocate and bring visibility: “In meetings [the
sponsor] … said, ‘What do you think?’ or ‘That's a great idea,’ … cc’d me on emails or …

97
really tried to promote me in front of the organization.” However, another protégé mentioned
getting opportunities at work, “that sort of happened organically, whether or not it is because of
sponsorship program… a continuation of just where I am in my career.”
Accounts of the coaching support included the affirmation that, “having a coach is so
helpful for questions and skills that you don't learn day to day … those leadership skills … how
to give feedback to people … time management.” An additional positive benefit of the program
design, described by a protégé in this cluster, was that it, “afforded an opportunity for us to have
candid conversations with senior leaders of the firm that we otherwise mightn't have been able
to.” On the other hand, a lack of understanding for the role of sponsor and how to best interface
with the protégé contributed to challenges experienced early on by another protégé: “I [was] …
confused in terms of the role of the sponsor, whether it was purely just to open opportunities to
you or [also] … give some guidance … how best to tackle … the underlying issues …
identified.”
Some challenges in fully utilizing the sponsor’s advocacy were intertwined with the
environment created by different responsibilities. One protégé described how a sponsor asked,
“Is there anything you wanted to work on?’… there were things you wanted to work on [they
were] more than happy to push that… it just comes down on competing priorities at this stage.”.
The same protégé also shared however, that the experience was, “overall, extremely positive.”
Three of the four protégés recalled the tension created between time-sensitive tasks and the
challenge of balancing their responsibilities with the sponsorship opportunity. One recalled
speaking with others in the program: “Everyone’s like, ‘Well, I’m slammed at work already. I
don’t…have capacity to think about it and I wish I had a bit more guidance as to what I am going
to achieve out of it.” Another broader environmental factor that may have diminished the

98
experience for some members of this group was the lack of examples of women or other diverse
members in upper-level leadership to reinforce the possibility of the path for others: “It annoys
me actually…If they're setting up new funds they could, implement different structures…or
different boards.”
The opportunities for learning through the modeling of behavior by coaches or sponsors
were more limited with the scenic overlook group, due not only to competing priorities for time,
but also the fact that some protégé did not initiate conversations about needs or struggled with
feelings of guilt for taking the sponsor’s time. The theme of guilt may be more far reaching as
one protégé shared about conversations within the cohort: “One of the key themes that came out
almost unequivocally, everyone was very mindful of not wasting the time of the
partners…almost felt guilty…you naturally marginalized your own value because…they’re
doing so many more important things.”
Each protégé did have at least one item to share regarding what they learned through the
behavior of a sponsor. One protégé focused on learning by watching interactions of the sponsor
who is, “a person that’s nice and treats everyone in the organization with respect. I think that’s
really important.” One highlighted the opportunity to learn and move beyond a myopic view of
the current mid-level role through by listening to the sponsor’s leadership journey: “We don't
know what we don't know. And someone who is at that senior level … experience has a vantage
point, which very few others have … [my] questions [were] …common failures … pitfalls … to
be mindful of?” Another found value in learning through listening: “Hearing what other people
have tried and just trying to implement that into your strategy.” One protégé focused the
interview more towards an informal sponsor’s support and other development assistance, rather
than the those provided by the sponsorship program.

99
The scenic overlook group reported only a few examples of agency around program
activities, especially self-reflection leading to action. One protégé recounted committing to
delegating more after reflecting on the sponsor’s rationale: “‘You can't keep doing everything. …
you need to be able to mentor them, coach them, but also know when to dive in and dive out.’ …
that was … validation that I can do that [from] someone like [them] was very important.”
Another protégé’s self-reflection led to ideas around providing sponsorship for others in the team
to, “make sure [others] get opportunities.” Finally, one protégé from this scenic overlook cluster
articulated a sentiment visible in the interviews of all individuals in this group, “I think more
than anything else, it's solidified my view that that VE does value me.” Protégés’ communicated
some satisfaction with their experience and progress, yet also candid self-critique of areas where
they would have liked to invest more. The researcher’s analysis of the protégés’ perspectives and
experiences in the scenic overlook group showed that while everyone could recount at least some
benefits from participating in the program, only some but not all the program goals were fully
realized for each protégé.
The SCT analysis for these three clusters proved useful in tracing the different influences
on the protégés’ sponsorship program experience. Perhaps the most important distinction among
the clusters was the differences in agency displayed by the protégés in leveraging the
opportunity, primarily in those who reached scenic overlook. Recalling the protégés’ ratings on
their program experience, it’s also important to note that eleven out of thirteen protégés rated the
program “very beneficial,” one chose “beneficial,” and only one did not return the survey, so the
reader should factor that into their understanding and interpretation of each cluster’s final
endpoint. In this section, the descriptive labels of summit, timberline, and scenic overlook served
as an analytic frame to examine protégés’ journeys and distinguish variations in their

100
sponsorship experience. Placement in each of these clusters also aided the next level of analysis
regarding the acquisition of tools needed to navigate the leadership labyrinth - a primary focus of
this study and central premise of the conceptual framework.
Acquiring and Developing Tools for Navigating the Labyrinth
The clustering of three distinct groups provided a way to conduct the second level of
analysis, comparing the destination achieved with the protégés’ acquisition of tools. The study
explored how a sponsorship program might equip emerging leaders with the tools needed to
more successfully navigate the leadership labyrinth, a term coined by Eagly and Carli (2007)
and described in Chapter Two. In subsequent research, Wyatt and Silvester (2015) examined the
leadership journeys of 20 White men and women and 20 men and women from underrepresented
groups and noted four themes that participants described as important to navigate the path to
leadership: visibility, networks, development, and supervisor support. The researcher designated
these themes as “tools for navigating the labyrinth” in the conceptual framework and found
evidence of protégés acquiring the tools to varying degrees throughout the sponsorship program
experience. The analysis of the protégés’ experiences revealed a possible fifth tool to add to the
desired toolkit— Voice. A brief definition of each tool follows next, including exemplar quotes
from the current study of VE’s sponsorship program, and after that, the researcher’s analysis of
the protégés’ tool acquisition.
Visibility: The state of being seen by senior decision-makers, including being seen in a
high profile leadership role or assignment (Wyatt & Silvester, 2015). The study also tracked
instances of advocacy within visibility. A protégé acknowledged, “I definitely think I've … got
more exposure to senior people, which is one of the things I wanted” (Camila).

101
Networks: Connections with others in the organization. Includes formal and informal
networks. A protégé described connections made during the program and how “now we … have
been able to learn from each other … So, I think that's been hugely beneficial” (Taylor).
Development: Opportunities for learning in formal development courses or professional
training sessions. Also includes the concept of mentorship. This study further segmented
development into skills and thought-partner activities to differentiate types of development.
One protégé commented that “part of it was having somebody talk through that [situation] with
me in a very a third-party way where I didn't know the answer” (Sage). Another mentioned the
skill development of time-management at the leadership level: “[A] couple of group
sessions…we talked to other sponsees to figure out how to better manage our time, how to …
reserve time to actually review what you've done and think about it and use that to expand upon
it" (Kai).
Supervisor Support: Acknowledges the importance of supervisor as the gatekeeper to
advancement and the individual closest to the individual in the day-to-day activities. Also
includes the concept of sponsorship, as a supervisor or sponsor is a person with influence to
advocate for an employee and open the door to advancement opportunities. Since this was a case
study of a sponsorship program, this tool catalyzed the acquisition of all the tools. The researcher
coded the actions of the sponsor into the other categories to track the effect of the sponsorship
program on equipping employees in each area. One protégé noticed the advocacy designed in the
program: “We were given day one, a sponsor at the partner level, who really did take on that
mantle of making sure that if there were interesting opportunities coming down the pike … they
were able to champion for us” (Indigo).

102
Voice—A Possible Addition to the Model: Analysis of the protégé interviews
uncovered another theme protégés described on their sponsorship journey. “Voice” indicates a
feeling of empowerment to share ideas in leadership settings and advocate for oneself and others.
It also includes the presence of self-belief to know your opinion has value in a setting, and that
others are listening to you. A protégé’s recollection of interactions with the sponsor exemplified
voice: “Taking more opportunities speak on those firm wide or department wide meetings…
that's one way to get noticed … but also just share your experience because it's valuable and …
people should hear it.” The protégé added, “generally I've heard [the sponsor] talk about …the
idea of advocating for yourself.”
The researcher coded interviews for evidence of tool-acquisition opportunities in
described behaviors, actions, or learning associated with a tool. The tool most frequently
referenced was development, followed by visibility and then the new category, voice. Networks
appeared least frequently in the protégés’ reported experiences. Table 10 presents the
researcher’s analysis of both the frequency and magnitude of the tools acquired by the protégés
during the VE program, based on their interview descriptions and reflections. The evidence
showed that every program participant acquired tools to assist them on their leadership journey.
Higher frequency and degree of acquisition, mostly aligned with cluster classification; however,
unique individual differences also emerged within groups that varied from this overall pattern.

103
Table 10
Tools Acquired for Navigating the Leadership Labyrinth
Protégé Clusters Tools for Navigating the Leadership Labyrinth
Fostered by Sponsorship Program
Visibility Network Development Supervisor
Support
Voice
Summit
(4 protégés)

V V
V V
N N
N
D D
D D

V V
V V
Timberline
(5 protégés)
V V
V V V
N N
N
D D
D D D

V V V
V V
Scenic Overlook
(4 protégés)
V V
V V
N
D D
D D
V V
V

Note: Each tool is represented by the first letter of the tool’s name. The number of letters in each
cell indicates how many protégés from the cluster described behaviors, actions, or learning
associated with the tool and the size of the letter indicates the magnitude or the degree to which
the protégé appeared to acquire the tool. For example, locating a V, V, or V in one cell indicates
the level of visibility acquired by three different protégés through the program. The tool,
supervisor support, which includes sponsorship, is greyed out since the study examined the
influence of the sponsorship program on the acquisition of other tools.

Reaching the endpoint of the hike’s ascent, the protégés retraced their paths traveled and
reflected on the experience. Everyone achieved a new level of visibility in the organization and,
similar to a mountain hike, the vantage point gave protégés a more expansive view of the larger
VE organization. Through both successes and challenges, participants gained new skills for

104
managing others, new insights into their own behavior, and new understandings about the
perceptions of others. The next section continues with the protégé reflections and wisdom
gleaned from the experience.
Part 4: Reflecting on the Journey and Sharing Wisdom
For some protégés, the sponsorship program was near conclusion during the interviews
for this study, while others had finished the program nearly one to two years prior. In all cases,
the study gave participants an opportunity to reflect on their experiences and share their
perspectives. This section begins with a description of milestones achieved and shifts in mindsets
resulting from protégés’ participation in the program. Next, the researcher describes the finding
of a sponsorship program “ripple effect.” Selected advice from protégés to the next cohort
concludes this final section of the sponsorship journey.
Milestones and Mindsets
The goals for the VE sponsorship program centered around supporting and retaining high
performing individuals from underrepresent groups through their transition into mid-level
leadership roles and on to senior-level roles. A promotion to a new role is one important
milestone in an employee’s career. Therefore, the researcher analyzed anonymized position data
from the past five years for all participants in the sponsorship program (n=23), to track career
trajectories and discover any professional milestones reached around the timeframe of the
program. Of the twenty-three individuals, 57% (13/23) were promoted the same year they
entered sponsorship program, 30% (7/23) were promoted the year immediately following
participation in the program, and 13% (3/23) were either promoted a year before entering the
program or a year after completing the program. The analysis also showed that over 95% (22/23)
of the participants in the program remain at VE as of February 2022.

105
During the researcher’s analysis of the 13 individual interviews, a theme of protégés’
shifting mindsets emerged. Whether these mindsets were articulated by a single protégé or
echoed by multiple protégés, the researcher chose to compile the full list as signposts on a path
and markers of possible changes ahead for others on the sponsorship journey. The mindsets were
divided into two general groups: internally focused and externally focused.
Two shifts in internally focused mindsets grew from the LCP 360-assessment experience.
Frist, a protégé reflected on the shift in awareness spurred on by the feedback: “It helps
you…reorient your own mindset and expectations of yourself…understand…how others
perceived you.” The protégé went on to explain that the information could either lead to setting
goals for change or, “if you were pleasantly surprised…[give] a confidence boost of you’re
going in the right direction, trust those instincts, trust your gut” (Indigo). These mindsets of
trusting instincts and new-found or rediscovered confidence appeared in eight protégé
interviews. A protégé recalled a third internally focused shift to, “the mindset of seeing yourself
as a leader…as somebody who is on the path to partner” (Nola). Closely related to the mindset of
visualizing yourself as a leader is advocating for yourself and communicating, “this is what I'm
doing … the impact on the firm …why I should be considered a future leader. This is why I
should be integrated onto other larger projects…the sponsorship program…pushes you out of
your comfort zone” (Sage). Another protégé described how self-advocacy could be done by
verbalizing interest in projects and showing you can bring value “in a constructive way…so I
don’t seem … pushy, but … trying to add value to the process” (Kai). Finally, a protégé
described the shift to, “thinking about your own development and career in a more structured
way, even if you're not necessarily in a program anymore … take that same approach…it helped

106
frame my perspective a bit more” (Dakota). The five internally focused mindsets were joined by
four externally focused mindsets.
The first external shift was expanding the decision-making filters: “Now … your
thoughts aren't trying to make sure everyone's happy, but what's best for the team, what's best for
the firm, what's best … going forward … it's definitely been … a mindset shift” (Taylor). The
second external shift in mindset was understanding the role each individual plays in a well-
functioning team and ensuring everyone fulfills their role. One protégé paraphrased advice from
the sponsor that led to this shift: “They might not like you because you're delegating to them. But
the fact of the matter is, you have to … this is the way our business model works. … you should
be adding more value to the organization” (Joshua). Understanding a formal sponsorship
program’s role in creating equitable access to sponsorship was another shift in mindset:
If … [senior leaders] don't look like you, if you don't have as much in common because
you're female and everybody at the top is male or … for different reasons…you need a
little bit of formalization around it to pair people up to provide opportunities because
otherwise … maybe it happens more easily for others to get sponsorship… I hadn't really
thought of or realized that. (Nola)
Advocacy for your team was the fourth external shift: “Changing that mindset of saying … ‘I
hope we can get this’ …asking for permission… to be … more demanding…, ‘We need this
now’” (Taylor). Some of the mindsets mentioned by protégés led to actions and implications that
extended beyond the program.
The Ripple Effect and Advice for Future Cohorts
The protégés first receiving and then extending the application of sponsorship to others
was an example of a ripple-effect phenomenon uncovered during analysis. Participants translated

107
their protégé experiences into sponsoring opportunities for individuals in the protégé’s circle of
influence: “[We] want to help others along that are junior to us” (Nola). The deeper
understanding of how sponsors can open doors to opportunities led protégés to “advocate for …
direct reports … making sure they're getting the right experiences or diversity of experiences”
(Dakota). The researcher found over half of the protégés shared ideas or plans that converted the
shift in mindsets during the program into action. Examples included, empowering versus
managing individuals, encouraging others to make connections and get direct feedback on
progress, setting goals, intentionally developing other team members, and looking for quiet
individuals with potential who otherwise might be overlooked.
The researcher also analyzed participant reflections and advice offered to future protégés
to look for evidence of insights gained over the year-long sponsorship experience. The advice
included markers of agency, as one protégé shared, “You get out of it what you put into it…you
have to be open…as honest as you are allowed to be…don’t accept all criticism, but you have to
listen to it…to make informed decisions” (Kai). Four protégés mentioned the challenge of
navigating the sponsorship program opportunity while still maintaining daily responsibilities.
One protégé articulated how the opportunity required intentional planning: “There has to be
intention and effort and planning for, you know, big picture thinking and, and finding ways to do
my job, but also elevate my role and kind of taking ownership over that process” (Nola). Finally,
several protégé offered encouragement to fully leverage the resources and seize the opportunity.
One protégé urged others to see the unique benefit in “having a one-on-one relationship with [a
senior partner]…It’s quite humbling because…very few people in the world will…have air-time
with that person” (Joshua). A second protégé gave advice to “with the sponsor…try to think
about how…that person could be useful for you before you have those interactions also and

108
ideally before you get started” (Jade). And one other shared this final encouragement, “Don’t
hold back, it’s an opportunity that you’re not paying for, that the company is paying for, so take
advantage of it” (Ramsey).
Discussion RQ2
The exploration of 13 protégés’ experiences in VE’s sponsorship program provided rich
descriptions and insightful viewpoints into how the program may have influenced participants’
professional growth and leadership opportunities. The evidence suggests the program positively
shaped the leadership journey of all participants, facilitating access to new vantage points in the
organization. The program mitigated the luck factor of sponsorship, encouraged acquisition of
key tools for leadership, provided advocacy and assistance through sponsor and coach, and
communicated each participant’s value to VE and potential pathways forward.
Tracing the protégés’ sponsorship journey brought to light unique characteristics of each
stage in the VE program. The nomination and selection process opened access to sponsorship
and extended intentional support to individuals whose previous experiences showed they had not
yet found an advocate or clear path to the next level of leadership. The LCP 360-assessment and
introductory meetings mapped out the path for the year, setting the stage for a successful
journey. All protégés’ found the program beneficial and described instances of learning from
observing others and from sponsors sharing leadership stories and hard-won wisdom. However,
varying levels of environmental influence and personal agency placed them at different
endpoints in their journey. Some protégés encountered obstacles navigating the choice between
time spent on immediate duties or strategic investment in sponsorship opportunities. All protégés
emerged from the program aware that VE leader’s investment opened a new pathway for them in
the organization.

109
The description of the elements of SCT in action during a sponsorship program may
prove helpful in future program designs by acknowledging the triadic reciprocity of the elements
of SCT (Bandura, 1986; Wood & Bandura, 1989) Findings from the study may also prove
beneficial in highlighting the connection between an intentional sponsorship program and the
acquisition of tools for navigating the complex path to leadership from them themes found by
Wyatt and Silvester (2015). Future exploration of the behavioral element of sponsors could build
on a previous studies of developing leaders through observational learning (Kempster & Parry,
2014) and leadership storytelling and reflection by sponsors (Cornish & Morgan, 2017). To
varying degrees, all protégé successfully acquired new tools to use on their continued leadership
journey, most notably visibility, development, and voice through empowerment. Of particular
significance may be the findings from protégé reflections which revealed this fifth tool, “voice.”
The influence of empowerment, self-advocacy, and self-belief may be fruitful areas for future
exploration.
RQ3: How can the sponsorship program continue to evolve to increase equity of access to
leadership opportunities?
The study examined VE’s sponsorship program around the conclusion of cohort three and
into selection and launch of cohort four. These initial years of a new program provide a unique
window into the dynamics of implementation when designs on paper transition to actions by
individuals. This section presents findings that inform how the program may continue to evolve
and opens with participant reflections focused on program strengths and areas for improvement.
The second part looks forward, presenting findings that might inform the evolution of the
sponsorship program and possible adaptions situated in VE’s larger organizational ecosystem.
Reflections to Guide Iterative Improvements

110
Participants’ reflections and feedback offered ideas for how the program might evolve in
the future. Early in this study, a focus group member offered insight into VE’s commitment to
continually study and improve the sponsorship program over time: “Certainly the work was not
done once you made the decision to move ahead [with the program] and we’ll continue to
monitor and modify as needed.” The data marking milestones, referenced in RQ2, highlight the
program’s success from the standpoint of employee retention (95% of protégés). The researcher
also analyzed focus group data and protégé and sponsor interview data to compile a full list of
participants’ perceptions regarding program strengths to preserve, as well as suggested priorities
for improvement. Analysis of internal documents augmented the list. Many topics aligned with
the same categories as the program design principles found in RQ1. Two new categories also
surfaced: program accelerants and onboarding. Tables 11 and 12 present the full list of topics
with each classified as a program strength (S), suggested improvement (I), or both, and includes
a brief description of the feedback along with the corresponding source of evidence. Table 11
focuses on strengths and improvements related to program structure and Table 12 focuses on
program experience.

Table 11
Strengths (S) and Improvements (I) in Program Structure and Broader Organization
Program
Features
Feedback
Classification
(S or I)
Feedback Description
and Source of Evidence
1. Part of a
Larger DEI
Culture and
Ecosystem
S Sponsorship program stimulates change in DEI across
broader organization and provides way to integrate
company culture to new acquisitions. (FG, PI, SI)

111
Program
Features
Feedback
Classification
(S or I)
Feedback Description
and Source of Evidence
I Involve protégé’s manager to sustain the growth
experience. “Bringing managers along in the journey.
…Their protégés go through this program for a year and
then what? …Managers still have to cultivate that
talent.” (Focus Group Member) (FG, PI, SI)
2. Targeted
Phase of
Employee
Career
S

I
Currently set at the right career juncture. (PI, SI, FG, ID)

Need continued work to mitigate time pressure and the
challenge of program prioritization at mid-level
leadership to allow for optimal investment in the
program. (PI, SI)
3. Clearly stated
Program
Purpose
S

I
Clear evidence in written documents and session plans.
Articulated by over half of protégé and 100% of
leaders:
“Making that statement [the protégé] is valued … a rising
leader … tangible evidence of the investment that we're
willing to … make in [their] career” (Jayden - sponsor).
(FG, PI, SI, ED, ID)

Improve moderate (54%) understanding that protégé
selection signifies potential for senior leadership and
increase moderate (70%) understanding that protégé’s
selection signifies value and desire to retain. (PI)
4. Assessment of
the program
and Tracking
Results

S

I

I

Program conducts mid-year surveys and tracks
retention/promotion data. (FG, ID, ED).
95% retention rate (22/23), 87% promotion rate during
year entering program or directly after finishing
program. 30% now at senior level role three years into
program implementation. (ID)

Define program success. “Probably the biggest challenge
for them and also a bit for me … it's hard to define what
success is when it's … a relatively short period working
with somebody” (Sloan - sponsor). (SI, PI, FG)

Consider how to communicate career pathways and
development to individuals in different functional
departments (PI)

112
Program
Features
Feedback
Classification
(S or I)
Feedback Description
and Source of Evidence
I

Improve response rates to program participant survey
(~50%) (ID) Consider follow-up surveys to protégés 1-
3 years after program completion. (ID, PI, SI)
5. A partner at
VE champions
and shepherds
the program
S Addition of another VE employee whose role includes
some support for the program by refining materials and
processes, working with program lead, and making
connections to other professional growth and DEI work.
(FG, ID)
6. Nomination
and Selection
Process
S

S

I

I
Protégés affirmed the possible expansion of program
eligibility already under discussion, two stating that VE
should still primarily focus on underrepresented groups.
(PI, FG,ID)

Sponsor matching process yielded a 90% in top two
ratings for good business match; Same office is easier,
but productive sponsorship can happen across time
zones. Continue asking protégé for input on location.
(PI, SI, ID)

Review factors used for nomination. Nine protégés talked
about individuals stifled or overlooked based on
missing leadership characteristics, including voice:
“people who have some of the best ideas but haven’t
been told their entire lives that everybody else needs to
hear [them]” (Indigo). (FG, PI, SI)

Consider how to evaluate “high performing” in different
functional departments for entry to the program. (PI)
Program
Accelerants
(NEW)

S

S
Commitment from leaders to sponsor. Reasons given for
why sponsors participated: Pay it forward; Reciprocal
Participation; Strategic Example; or Practical, due to
alignment with nominated protégé needs (SI, FG)

Positive “buzz” about the program from previous cohorts.
“Real live example of what it means to, to have a
sponsor what the program could do. So high
expectations going in.” (Nola)

113
Note: Feedback Classification Code: Program Strength (S), Suggested Improvement (I); Data
Source Code: Focus Group Members (FG), Protégé Interview (PI), Sponsor Interview (SI),
Internal Document (ID) and External Document (ED); Numbers track initial program features.

Table 12
Strengths (S) and Improvements (I) to Program Experience
Key Program
Features
Feedback
Classification
(S or I)
Feedback Description
and Source of Evidence
7. Senior Level
Leader as
Sponsor
Committed to
Meet
Regularly
S

I

I
All 13 protégés realized the unique opportunity to work
with high level partners with influence. Appreciated
sponsors’ time and willingness to advocate for
opportunities. (PI)

Address hesitancy to take senior leader’s time; Calendar
sessions in advance; Consider diverse approaches to
length and frequency of sessions. (PI, SI)
Continue to increase diversity at the partner level to serve
as sponsors and role models. (FG, PI, SI, ED, ID)

Provide more suggestions for structuring meetings (SI, PI)
8. Coaching
Provided by
External
Consultant

Onboarding
Protégés and
Sponsors
(NEW)

S

S

I

I

All 13 protégé articulated coach was helpful and 8 out of
13 expressed sentiments like, “wealth of knowledge”
(Nola), or “personalized by asking thoughtful questions
that make you … be introspective” (Sage).
Provided a confidential space to be transparent. Internal
surveys indicate 78% found the coach “very useful”
over 3 years. Response rate (n=14 out of 23). (PI, SI,
FG, ID)

Information-rich orientation. (SI, PI, ID)

Anticipate protégés’ concerns about using sponsors’ time
and address in orientation and sponsor’s first meeting
with protégé. Bring in past cohort members. (SI, PI)

Need more follow-up early into program to ensure roles
are understood. (SI, PI)

114
Key Program
Features
Feedback
Classification
(S or I)
Feedback Description
and Source of Evidence
I

Articulate the different ways sponsors can add value to the
experience of the protégés and follow-up early to
address individual cases. Provide learning opportunities
for sponsors around specific challenges faced by
underrepresented groups in general or more specific to
race or culture. (SI)

9. Leadership
Assessment
S Nearly all (12/13) protégé found the LCP helpful with five
specifically highlighting the assessment as a strength of
the program. (PI)
10. Coaching
Sessions for
Protégés and
Sponsors

S & I
More coaching sessions continued to be a topic for
protégés and sponsors. One protégé suggested monthly
sessions. Two protégés desired more structure. (PI, ID,
SI)
11. Cohort
Group Sessions /
Build a
community
I

I

I
Improve use of sessions to focus on development and
networking. Consider additional face to face
networking opportunity. Content was helpful but could
improve breakout rooms and segment by function or
level (VP vs. Director). (PI, SI, ID)

Improve peer networking opportunities during the
program: “Connections across the firm … being able to
build that network is as much the value here as anything
else” (Sloan - sponsor). (SI, PI, ID)

Add network opportunities between cohorts. (FG, SI, PI)

Note: Feedback Classification Code: Program Strength (S), Suggested Improvement (I); Data
Source Code: Focus Group Members (FG), Protégé Interview (PI), Sponsor Interview (SI),
Internal Document (ID) and External Document (ED); Numbers track initial program features.

Evolution of the Program in the Organization’s Ecosystem
Analyzing evidence of VE’s program strengths and suggested improvements seeded ideas
for future adaptations. A synthesis of these strengths and suggestions resulted in two primary

115
categories of proposed changes: evolutions in the sponsorship program and evolutions in the
VE’s broader organizational ecosystem. This section begins with a focus on proposed changes
for the sponsorship program, including both the adaptations already in progress at the time of this
study and future adaptations to consider. The section concludes with an exploration of both in-
progress and new adaptations for the broader organization.
Sponsorship program
Multiple sources of evidence confirmed VE’s sponsorship program proved beneficial to
protégés. At the same time, the evidence also highlighted pathways for the program’s continued
evolution. Participant responses from focus group, protégé, and sponsor interviews suggested
that program efficacy hinges on leaders’ willingness to serve as sponsors. Therefore, two
possible program adaptations focus on the sponsor role: equipping sponsors to better sponsor
culturally and racially diverse protégés, and intentionally developing the sponsor pool. A third
adaptation includes a more systematic onboarding process for both sponsors and protégés to
facilitate a productive beginning to the sponsorship journey. Finally, a fourth adaptation could
investigate ways to better measure success or evaluate progress. As noted in RQ1, the VE
leadership focus group shared several other program adaptations already proposed or
implemented based on early program observations and participant survey responses. The
collection of protégé and sponsor interviews included three of the four adaptations related to the
sponsorship program already in progress. Table 12 includes the complete summary of possible
adaptations, beginning with the four newly synthesized proposed adaptations from this study,
followed by four adaptations already in progress at VE.

116
Table 13
Evolutions in VE’s Sponsorship Program
Possible Evolutions to the
Sponsorship Program
Description of Adaptations
and Source of Evidence
1. Equip Sponsors to Support
Racially and Culturally
Diverse protégés
Provide sponsor training around bias, common obstacles
experienced, and how to support protégés. “I don't have a
sense of … some of those problems … my sponsee had
experienced … it would have been useful if I knew that so
we could talk about how to address that.” (Zuri) (SI, PI,
FG)
Emphasize role of an advocate for protégé to be a trailblazer.
A sponsor responded to a protégé struggling with the lack
of someone like them in leadership: “Well, if there's no one
else, you can be the one, right. Like you can be the first.
Someone has to be and why not you?" (Focus Group
Member). (PI, FG)
2. Develop a sponsor pool Consider ways to understand what, if anything, prevents
influential senior leaders from serving as sponsors and
remove barriers to serving as sponsors. (SI)
3. Adapt onboarding process
to clarify understanding
and optimize the
experience
Remove impediments to the year-long journey early
(competing priorities, feelings of guilt) and consider ways
to increase visibility and voice which proved challenging in
some roles. (PI, SI, FG)
4. Refine Program Success
Measurements
Consider measurement around the “tools” of visibility,
networks, development, and voice.
Track long-term benefits of the program. Conduct follow-up
surveys with protégés and sponsors over the next 2-4 years.

5. Expand Networking
Opportunities
Consider additional group settings or face to face meetings
within the cohort and across cohorts.
6. Expand eligibility criteria
a
Evidence confirms this expansion is already underway. The
newest cohort (2022) includes 10 protégés, seven
individuals from underrepresented groups, and three White
males. (ID)
7. Add coaching for
sponsors
a

Continue to develop the individual and group sessions to
build sponsor capacity. (FG, SI)

117
Possible Evolutions to the
Sponsorship Program
Description of Adaptations
and Source of Evidence
8. Continue sponsor-
manager periodic check-
ins
a

Prioritize check-ins to facilitate smooth interactions and
synergistic efforts with protégés. (FG, SI, PI)
9. Revise nomination forms
a
Review protégés’ feedback regarding who might be a “fit” for
the sponsorship program and what to look for when
nominating a protégé in the future. (PI)

Note: Data Source Code: Focus Group Members (FG), Protégé Interview (PI), Sponsor Interview
(SI), Internal Document (ID) and External Document (ED)
a
Adaptations already in progress

Evolution of VE’s Broader Organization Ecosystem
The interview evidence also showed how the sponsorship program exists within a broader
organizational culture. The VE external consultant partner articulated the symbiotic relationship
between the sponsorship program and VE’s overall efforts to increase equity, inclusion, and
diversity:
Anyone who really understands DEI work and organizations would realize that having an
intact sponsorship program for three years is a sign of an organization that is well on their
way on the DEI journey. They're not just putting it up on their website and just talking
about whatever they think they're supposed to be saying. I mean, I think it says a lot.
They're on like DEI 2.0 at that point.
Reviewing the data, the researcher identified three areas of further DEI growth to consider
moving forward: sponsorship program offshoots, integrating organizational DNA into new
acquisitions, and maintaining an overarching view of the organization to identify competing
interests for time and resources.

118
One example of a sponsorship program offshoot launched in 2022. A focus group
member described the plan to augment overall VE manager training with similar content
provided to protégés to better equip all managers in key skills and mindsets: “Outside of this
program … we are…going to run a manager boot camp and launch a manager framework for
next year.” A protégé also mentioned expanding training: “I think the leadership wheel and
survey was really well done in giving more self-awareness to people. I think almost everyone
should take it at a certain level” (Anna). Another possible offshoot is the idea of expanding
access to executive coaching in other phases of employees’ careers. This offshoot was based an
idea two protégés mentioned to “have it again … when you're … heading a business line or
heading a vertical or whatever that … step is in the career. I don't think it's something that is a
one and done” (Sage). Accounts of continuing informal sponsorship plans already emerged
during protégé interviews, but an additional investment in executive coaching for new senior
leaders could help replicate the mid-level leadership support for successful transitions at the
partner level.
Focus group members recalled that company growth helped instigate the genesis of the
sponsorship program, to formalize and sustain the culture of diversity and inclusion: “Part of the
reason the founders created the company was the idea to build an inclusive organization that
everyone felt a part of, and everyone enjoyed coming to every day.” Continued growth of the
organization may necessitate another approach to infusing the DNA from VE’s founding into
new acquisitions. A small number of protégés described DEI challenges in their business unit
cultures: “Well, VE itself is very diverse. It's very inclusive, it's very mindful of … cultural
diversity … but [this place] … is just lagging … and it just takes so much time to change that.”

119
Based on this finding, another possible evolution in VE’s ecosystem could involve a proactive
approach to identify and address regional inconsistencies in organizational values.
Finally, the researcher’s analysis of VE’s commitment to DEI, observed in their public
facing documents and embodied by their leaders, underscored the need to consider any changes
in the sponsorship program or other general company expectations in light of the capacity and
bandwidth of senior partners. With many initiatives underway to support a diverse, equitable,
and inclusive culture, competing interests for senior partners’ time may affect their availability to
serve as sponsors. Proactively tracking all the initiatives of senior partners and considering each
senior leaders’ strengths and current involvement in DEI efforts could help VE protect this
important resource of senior leaders and ensure their continued contributions to the sponsorship
role.
Discussion RQ3
The analysis of sponsorship program participant perspectives and experiences offered
insight into current strengths, areas of improvement, and possible future adaptations of VE’s
sponsorship program and broader organization. Evidence showed that all but one of the key
program characteristics were being implemented well, though many also warrant continued focus
on improvement. A synthesis of suggested improvements led to possible evolutions to the
sponsorship program, including equipping and increasing the sponsor pool, enhancing protégé
and sponsor onboarding, and identifying metrics to measure success. Adaptations to the broader
organization revealed the interconnected nature of change, branching out with new programs or
grafting new branches into the organization, both influencing resources required for growth.
Some of these adaptations will be the focus of specific recommendations reported in Chapter 5.
As the organization looks forward, their continued commitment to gathering feedback and

120
nurturing a culture of continuous improvement may help to organize and guide change,
expanding and sustaining the success of the program for future cohorts.
Summary
The exploration of VE’s sponsorship program as a key case provided the opportunity to
retrospectively examine the genesis and design of the sponsorship program. Participants
experiences and perspectives were compiled and analyzed to understand the lived experiences of
the protégés and the program’s influence on their leadership development and journey. The study
also provided data to inform future evolution of the program. A discussion of key findings and
recommendations follows in Chapter Five.

121
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
The sponsorship concept entered the business world conversation in earnest with Hewlett
et al.’s (2010) reporting the continued disparity between the gender diversity found in junior
roles versus senior leadership. Since then, sponsorship initiatives have included various
underrepresented groups. Anecdotal and informal accounts of sponsorship are available, along
with reports from organizations, but few peer-reviewed research studies have investigated
organization-based sponsorship programs. This chapter reviews findings from a study of the key
case of VE’s sponsorship program. It also identifies the study’s limitations and the researcher’s
recommendations for practice. The chapter closes with recommendations for future inquiry, the
connection of the study to USC’s Rossier School of Education’s mission, and a concluding
summary of the research.
Discussion of Findings
This case-study of VE’s sponsorship program addressed three research questions focused
on the creation and design of the program (RQ1), the experiences of the protégés during the first
three years of implementation (RQ2), and ideas for how the program might evolve in the future
(RQ3). The following discussion centers on key findings from the case study, which will also
inform subsequent recommendations for research and practice. Four sections comprise the
findings, including the intentional design of the program, pathways followed and leadership tools
acquired, ideas for future evolution of the program, and solving for the luck factor.
Intentional Design (RQ1)
This retrospective study of VE’s program genesis and design affirmed the efficacy of key
program features reported in previous sponsorship research (Catalyst, 2011; Huston et al., 2019;
Paddison, 2013) and revealed crucial local factors at VE that likely contributed to the exceptional

122
design and meaningful professional growth outcomes. Five factors contributed to the genesis of
the program, including awareness of the need to support mid-level leaders and retain high
potential individuals, highlighting a path to leadership envisioned for them at VE. Of
significance, VE spent a year studying the needs of the organization and listening to ideas prior
to spending another nine months designing the sponsorship program.
The program included the sponsor but chose to use a high-level leader with organization-
level influence to serve in this role, rather than selecting a manager or supervisor. VE also added
a separate coach to guide development, a high-value feature that was less common in the
literature reviewed (Accenture, 2020; Ang, 2019; Paddison, 2013; Quinn et al., 2020). The
external coaching provided protégés access to a confidential space for growth and freed more
sponsor time to focus on advocacy and increasing protégé visibility in the broader organization.
VE’ sponsorship program exists within an organizational culture founded on inclusion
and is part of an ecosystem of programs designed to increase awareness and leadership access for
members of underrepresented groups. This cultural factor, embedded in the organizational
environment, brings authenticity and continuity to the stated goals of the program and aligns
with the environment element of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory (SCT), part of the
conceptual framework of the study. The person and behavior elements of SCT were also
prominent in the program design. The program incorporated opportunities for personal reflection
and self-regulation around goals after reviewing 360-assessment results with the coach. Protégés
also benefited from the behavior-modeling of the coach and sponsor, both through actions and
storytelling. In total, the study documented 11 key parameters and features that structured the
program design. Seven of these features affirmed and added helpful details, and four offered new
insights beyond the existing literature. The findings add to the existing literature, offering an

123
example of time invested in development paying dividends and responsive adaptations refining
the experience.
Pathways Traveled and Tools Acquired for the Leadership Journey (RQ2)
Examining influences on protégés’ growth during the program, through the lens of SCT,
revealed three thematic clusters of experience based on the endpoint of the year-long journey:
summit, timberline, and scenic overlook. Regardless of endpoint achieved, every journey proved
beneficial for protégés. However, those who ascended highest, to the summit and timberline,
shared journeys aided by productive interactions between person, behavior, and environment.
This finding sharply contrasted with protégés ascending only to the scenic overlook who were
inhibited by discordant interactions between the three SCT elements.
The person element was theorized to be the deciding factor in a sponsorship program
designed to provide a consistent range of environmental and behavioral influences. The research
confirmed that protégés’ degree of agency differentiated many of their sponsorship experiences.
As anticipated in the conceptual framework, the findings also revealed evidence of individual
cultural influences on participant experiences, specifically the guilt some protégés expressed
about taking sponsors’ time or the hesitancy to prioritize this opportunity over the needs of other
individuals.
The conceptual framework theorized that an effective coalescing of SCT elements during
sponsorship could result in protégés’ acquisition of tools that help navigate future pathways to
leadership. The four tools identified were themes from the Wyatt and Silvester (2015) study of
leadership journeys and included visibility, networks, development, and supervisor support. The
different protégé journeys of summit, timberline, and scenic overlook resulted in variations of
tool acquisition. However, there was also variation within each group, highlighting the unique

124
journey of each protégé. Visibility and development were the most consistent, with networks
acquired significantly less among all protégés. A new fifth tool, voice, also emerged from the
findings. This tool describes the protégés’ acquired self-advocacy and empowerment. Voice also
describes protégés’ self-belief in the value they bring when speaking up and sharing ideas in
company settings, rather than silently watching from the sidelines. Based on the evidence in this
study, organizations implementing sponsorship programs would do well to include features that
foster the development of the Wyatt and Silvester tools and might also consider ways to foster
the acquisition of “voice.”
Continuous Improvement and Imbuing Organizational DNA (RQ3)
Beyond the research findings guided by the conceptual framework, VE’s internal metrics
indicated a high-functioning sponsorship program welcoming its fourth cohort in February of
2022. The evidence showed a well-designed program enjoying successful initial years and also
revealed VE’s continuous improvement culture. Leadership expressed keen interest in partnering
for the research study to learn how the program could evolve and improve. Not every protégé’s
journey culminated in a summit experience, yet each protégés found some value in the
sponsorship program experience and understood the vote of confidence in their performance.
Findings also point to several areas of improvement that could advance protégés to at least the
timberline stage, a worthy destination that brings protégés significant visibility across the
organization and a new vantage point to develop a strategic leadership lens.
The findings indicated one significant improvement area for the program, the
development of community among the cohort to create networks within and across groups. The
improvement area aligns with evidence showing protégés’ weaker acquisition of Wyatt and
Silvester’s “network” tool. Other improvement areas include refining the onboarding process,

125
expanding metrics to measure success, and continuing to equip sponsors. A common challenge
to sponsorship noted in the literature points to under-prepared sponsors. One of the adaptations
made early in program implementation included the adding periodic coaching sessions with the
sponsor and external coach. The evidence showed VE’s sponsors understand their advocacy role
well. However, three out of the four sponsors interviewed shared questions about the execution
of role or the desire for additional insights and information to better sponsor their protégés.
The commitment to improve, demonstrated by these senior leader sponsors, surfaced
repeatedly during interviews and the analysis of company documents suggesting a strong
commitment to improvement within the organizational culture. Another consistent thread
marking VE’s underlying inclusive culture was exemplified by protégés advocating beyond their
needs or demographic descriptors to make the program available to anyone who might benefit.
Looking forward, two other areas for continued improvement are (1) increasing diversity at the
senior level so employees can “see someone like me,” one of the VE sponsorship program goals;
and (2) ensuring that with growth, the organization takes deliberate steps to infuse new branches
or companies acquired with VE’s foundational DNA.
Discovering the Luck Factor
The luck factor, a descriptive term that points to the indiscriminate catalyst of organic
sponsorship, was an unexpected finding in this study and contributes new insight to the formal
sponsorship program. A common concern raised by VE’s design team, and other organizations
considering programmatic sponsorship, revolves around engineering a sponsor-protégé
relationship that approximates the organic sponsorship experience. Certainly, human interactions
benefit from affinity and shared values, yet those same forces can exclude individuals from
organic sponsorship opportunities (Chanland & Murphy, 2018; Delgado & Ozuna Allen, 2019;

126
O'Dwyer & Richards, 2021). The impetus to conduct research on VE’s program arose from
previous research which detailed potential benefits of a formal sponsorship (Ang, 2019; Jin et al.,
2017). These benefits included access to cross-race or gender pairings, often unavailable through
organic sponsorship, that provide networks and resources to protégés typically only available
through connections with White male sponsors (Randel et al., 2021).
However, few, if any, studies have clearly articulated the concept of luck at play when an
individual serendipitously joins a workgroup with a supervisor who both understands
sponsorship and fosters organic relationships outside affinity groups. VE’s leadership decided
that access to sponsorship provided too many benefits to the individual and organization to allow
luck to drive the outcome. Participants in this study understood the personal and organizational
loss associated with overlooked and underdeveloped talent. Protégés’ feedback encouraged VE
to expand criteria to include anyone unseen and unheard, to raise up individuals with strong ideas
and skills, whose background had not fostered belief that their voice mattered or whose cultural
environment valued collective over individual credit. The term “luck factor” named the invisible
turn of chance that exists with organic sponsorship and provided new rationale and inspiration
for investing in formal programmatic designs.
Recommendations for Practice
This case-study provided a rich description of VE’s sponsorship program and detailed
both the program design and the lived experience of participants in the first three years of the
program. The findings also highlighted areas of continued improvement for the program. The
following recommendations apply specifically to the VE program context, offered as options to
guide their next steps in refining an already effective sponsorship program: target key areas for

127
program evolution, leverage the SCT concepts of modeling and agency to support learning, and
imbue new acquisitions with VE’s organizational DNA.
Recommendation 1: Target Key Areas for Program Evolution
Feedback from participants presented suggestions for a few slight changes and three areas
for more targeted change. This first recommendation focuses on improving networking and
collective learning opportunities starting with onboarding, personalizing sponsor support during
their first year, and integrating new ways to measure learning and success. Chanland and Murphy
(2018) presented a conceptual model for developmental networks and emphasized the important
ties to others necessary for progress. Feedback from the protégé interviews suggests that VE
might benefit from fostering more opportunities for connection within and between cohorts. One
possibility is enlisting an alumnus of the program to join orientation as a voice with experience
and lead networking events. Another possibility is to create break-out groups in job-alike
learning sessions to jump-start the continued connection described by one protégé in the study.
Multiple points of evidence indicate that recruiting high level senior leaders to serve as
sponsors proved to be a powerful design choice for the program that has already paid dividends.
Going forward, offering personalized coaching sessions for sponsors, early on during in the first-
year experience, could also add value. The organization has already incorporated several
methods for assessing program reactions and results, which align with levels one and four of the
New World Kirkpatrick Model for assessing training and effectiveness (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). However, integrating level two of the model (assessing learning) may help
new sponsors reflect on whether they internalized the training and whether they have a clear
sense of their role prior to entering the sponsor-protégé interactions.

128
The third area of program evolution also ties into the Kirkpatrick model, which provides
a level three for assessing transfer of learning to actions and behaviors. This research study
explored level three through analyzing the experiences and perspectives of the participants.
Going forward, VE could also incorporate targeted items in follow-up surveys to track the
transfer of participant learning to perceived changes in behavior and practice. One final item of
feedback focused on measuring success. VE already tracks the career progress of participants to
measure the degree of protégé movement along the leadership path. However, VE could also
implement an assessment based on the acquisition of the Wyatt and Silvester (2015) tools,
including the fifth tool, voice, as described in this study. Adding this assessment element would
provide a richer analysis that could be tracked over the coming years. It would also emphasize
that the formal sponsorship year initiates a process of leadership learning, reflection, and growth
that continues through the employee’s career.
Recommendation 2: Leveraging Modeling and Agency in Learning
A second area for program evolution stems from the findings connected to SCT, and the
related summit, timberline, and scenic overlook experiences. During orientation or early coaching
sessions, the program could include modules focused on the importance of modeling behavior
for sponsors and developing agency for protégés to increase awareness and build capacity for use
of these tools. Quinn et al. (2020) noted the need to train preceptors (sponsors) in specific issues
their protégés may encounter. Both Kempster and Parry (2014) and Cornish and Morgan (2017)
describe the power of observing a model to learn, both through actions modeled and through
listening to accounts of leadership journeys. Selected protégés described these actions by their
sponsors, but the practice did not permeate the overall reported experience of the 13 participants.
Coaches could continue to focus individual protégé sessions on agentic behaviors,

129
including reflection and self-regulation through setting goals. Coaches may also consider
prioritizing reflections on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1991) which has a direct influence on
personal agency. Numerous studies found low self-efficacy created a barrier to progress, but high
self-efficacy helped individuals be more proactive with networking or navigating challenges
(Beckwith et al., 2016; Liang & Gong, 2013; Nash & Moore, 2019). Awareness of how people
learn through the lens of SCT could further enhance participants’ depth of learning and the
overall program experience.
Recommendation 3: Imbuing Organizational DNA
Just as VE created the sponsorship program to institutionalize the cultural value of
inclusion and support internal pathways to leadership, the organization should consider exploring
how to on-board new business units, so they inherit VE’s organizational DNA. Global
organizations frequently need to navigate incongruencies with company culture and adapt in
ways to cultural practices of business units in other areas of the world while still imbuing the
organization’s foundational values into the new acquisitions. Differences in culture may also
arise across business units within a single regional context. Based on the study findings, a
moderate undercurrent of bias may still exist in some units.
Working proactively with the incoming leadership team during acquisition and
onboarding could provide opportunities for assessing alignment with VE’s organizational DNA,
followed by planning next steps to ensure the transfer of foundational values during company
expansion. Karambelkar and Bhattacharya (2017) presented an example of using the ADKAR
model for change (awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, reinforcement) for employee
onboarding. The same process could be used for new organizations if divergent values emerge
between the new acquisition and VE’s foundational culture. Once the leadership team is

130
onboarded well, they can lead the work of infusing the organization’s cultural values throughout
the new branch.
McKinsey 7S Model Framework
The focus of this study centered on VE’s sponsorship program. The broad scope of DEI
initiatives and the rapid pace of new acquisitions observed at VE points to the potential value of
utilizing the McKinsey’s 7s model at an organizational level to assess and monitor internal
change. Developed by Waterman et al. (1980) as a global framework for assessing alignment of
multiple areas to facilitate effective organizational change, the model depicts not a simple
interaction but, “really the relationship between structure, strategy, systems, style, skills, staff,
and superordinate goals [shared values in present form]” (p. 17). Figure 3 is a reproduction of the
graphic in the same publication and shows the multiple factors that affect an organization’s
ability to change, the interconnectedness of the factors, and contains no hierarchy between the
elements, save for shared values as they are “fundamental ideas around which the business is
built” (Waterman et al., 1980, p. 24)

Figure 3
The McKinsey 7S Model

Note: Figure reproduced from (Waterman et al., 1980, p. 18)

131
Guiding broader organizational change is beyond the scope of this research and the
organization may already have models in use to guide alignment and ensure all areas work
together to fuel change. However, three circumstances point to providing an instructive example
as part of the recommendations for this study. First, the decision to recruit high-level leaders to
serve as sponsors is operationalized in the “style” segment of the model. One element of
leadership “style” is how leaders spend their time (Waterman et al., 1980). Creating a
sponsorship program enlisting high level leaders sends a message to the organization about the
value placed on supporting the next generation of leaders. This, in turn, influences the other
elements of the model, and alignment is an important dynamic to emphasize and evaluate over
time.
A second attribute of “style” is culture. Waterman et al. (1980) use the example of
integrating new business units and describe the challenge: “If the two cultures are not integrated,
the planned strategies will not accrue…change too much too soon…risk uprooting more tradition
than can be replanted and vital skills…wither and die” (p.23). One important recommendation
from this study addressed the integration of new acquisitions. A company’s strong foundational
shared values will undoubtedly exert influence on incoming units, but leaders also need to be
mindful of the possible contradicting influence the new culture could have on shared values and
personnel.
Finally, the investment in future leaders through a sponsorship program, the “staff”
element of the 7S model, shows that four of the seven model elements are already working in
concert for change. The program grew out of the company’s shared value of inclusion and the
strategic goal of increasing diversity as both the right thing for people and the right thing for

132
business. A next step could be to assess if the systems, structure, and skills of the organization
are aligned to continue the DEI work.
The 7S model’s strength is the global view of the organizational complexities and
representation of the dynamic effects of change across the internal system, but it does not
monitor external influences nor give specific guidance about how to facilitate change. Guiding
step-by-step change within a specific area, such as the recommendation for onboarding new units
with attention to culture and values, requires both an awareness of the influence of the change on
other areas from a global view and enacting a process for implementing change. This last step of
execution is better facilitated by frameworks such as the ADKAR model, Design Thinking, or
Lean and Agile principles. VE’s initial exploration and change process back in 2017 bears some
hallmarks of Lean principles in action.
Postscript: Actions Underway Based on Study Findings
During the member-checking process in January, the researcher shared preliminary
findings with VE’s research project contacts, prior to cohort four’s launch. The researcher also
submitted a draft the completed dissertation draft in March for review to ensure descriptions of
the organization or program did not compromise confidentiality among peer organizations.
During the feedback exchange, VE’s project contact offered evidence of changes already
underway aligned with the recommendation to improve networking in the sponsorship program.
First, VE hosted a cross-cohort session for new protégés, “to have a safe, candid forum to ask
questions and get tips from previous cohort members.” No senior leaders joined the session.
Second, VE plans to host a multi-day spring event for all past and current sponsors and protégé.
External speakers, workshops, panels, networking lunches and group dinners are designed to
provide a rich experience to foster connections with a significant number of individuals flying in

133
from around the world. VE’s responsive changes provide another example of their commitment
to action and continuous improvement.
Limitations and Delimitations
The researcher gave reasoned consideration to the methods utilized in the study and
intentionally addressed both limitations and delimitations of the research (Creswell & Creswell,
2018) Limitations arise from areas the researcher is not able to control, for example challenges in
recruitment or inadequate access to documents, that may weaken the research. Delimitations are
the decisions a researcher makes that introduce limitations, such as the participant groups
selected, the methodology used, or the framework chosen as the lens of inquiry.
Over the course of the study, the following limitations emerged. The small number of
documents available to review and lack of access to the actual training documents led to a less
robust data set. The researcher promised confidentiality, but the organization members were
inherently aware of the relatively small size of the total participant pool, so study participants’
knowledge of these circumstances could have influenced their level of candor. Lack of access to
the one-on-one meetings between sponsors and protégés was also a limitation since the
researcher was not able to observe these key interactions without altering the usual private
context of the interactions. Additionally, the inability to observe group sessions or any additional
activities initiated by the sponsor, such as a dinner with other influential members of the
organization or an invitation to step in for the sponsor in a meeting, means this study relied
solely on participant descriptions of these events.
Several researcher-imposed delimitations also influenced the study. First, the researcher’s
use of social cognitive theory prioritized individual learning and growth as protégés interact with
the organizational environment and learn through observation. The conceptual framework left

134
other possible influential factors unexplored. Second, the selection of an established sponsorship
program as the key case focused the research on understanding and meaning-making of
sponsorship in a single organizational program context, rather than selecting participants from
different organizations and exploring the concept of sponsorship in general. Third, due to time-
constraints of the research, interviews and interactions were limited to a single interview, rather
than multiple checkpoints with leaders and protégés over an extended period of time.
Recommendations for Future Research
Findings from this key-case study presented several paths of inquiry to explore with
further research. Three proximal research opportunities include a longitudinal study with VE’s
protégés, prospective research concurrent with a new sponsorship program design, and tracing
the ripple effect of the sponsorship experience on protégé and sponsor leadership styles and
practice. Two other ideas branch into a more general exploration of observational learning for
leadership growth and investigating the sociocultural effects that may foster a “guilt” response,
inhibiting the use of resources for self.
The subject of measuring success over time arose from sponsors, leaders, and protégés.
Multiple references to “no magic bullet” revealed the dissonance around measuring success of a
year-long program that affects complex growth of leadership skills and mindsets. Interviews with
protégés two-years removed from the program offered a glimpse of what might be around the
next bend in the leadership journey. Conducting a follow-up study with the participants of this
program similar to a longitudinal study in education by Saunders et al. (2009), could extend the
map of participant’s growth journeys and explore whether tools acquired during the program
proved useful in navigating the leadership labyrinth.

135
The present study with VE retrospectively examined the sponsorship program design and
explored participant perceptions of key program characteristics responsible for its success. A
prospective study concurrent with another organization’s sponsorship program design and launch
could reveal pivotal junctures where organizations make design choices that affect the potential
participant experience. The nuanced and contextual design process defines the boundaries of the
experience and either encourages a transformational hike to the summit or a simple walk along a
forest path. The key decision points and forces at work in design require more research to
provide organizations with crucial details to optimize the sponsorship experience.
Exploring the ripple effect of the sponsorship experience is another promising line of
inquiry. Follow-up studies could investigate any continuing influence on protégés, sponsors, and
the organization. More expansive research across multiple organizations and individuals with
sponsorship experience could also examine far-reaching or long-term effects of sponsorship on
leadership style or organizational culture. The growing body of findings regarding the near-term
benefits of sponsorship for protégés make for a compelling case. Detailing any expanding or
enduring effects of protégé’s sponsoring others could further validate the significant investment
necessary to create and sustain a quality sponsorship program.
Another line of research might probe more deeply into the role of observational learning
in fostering leadership development. Kempster and Parry (2014) presented a model of
Observations Leadership Learning coupled with the three ideas for use of the model in research,
including the idea of stimulating reflection. One idea of particular interest is using this
observation approach to develop the concept of “voice” in leadership. The acquisition of skills or
mindsets through training or formal educational experiences seems to dominate the current
approach to learning and drives individuals toward courses of study for certification credentials

136
or doctoral degrees. However, job-embedded observational learning may allow for richer, lasting
change similar to the enculturation through mentorship described by Gallimore et al. (1992).
With increased awareness of alternative ways to learn, individuals may also seek apprenticeships
with mentors and sponsors to stimulate growth and advance their careers, rather than simply
defaulting to more traditional learning approaches.
Finally, the concept of personal agency and the limiting effect of some protégés’ internal
dialogue on their agentic actions in the sponsorship program, presents another research path to
explore. What factors contributed to the interval voice that whispered to protégés, “You’re not
worth their time. They have more important things to do”? Using a sociocultural lens to research
individuals exhibiting this sense of unworthiness of time or resources for self may lead to a
deeper understanding of experiences that influence this limiting mindset. Findings from this
research may uncover insights for assisting protégés to overcome this cycle of thinking and fully
leverage resources dedicated to their growth.
Implications for Equity and Connection to the Rossier Mission
This study focused on the learning opportunity afforded mid-level leaders through an
organization-based sponsorship program. The genesis and design of the program sought to
address the disparities of representation at the leadership table in global financial institutions for
individuals from historically marginalized groups in the United States. The conceptual
framework interwove a theory of learning, SCT, to explore the effects of the individual,
environment, and behavioral models on acquiring the skills, mindsets, and influence required for
effective leadership. VE, who generously partnered with the researcher for this study, models the
values of equity in its commitment to forge pathways to leadership for underrepresented groups.
While not an educational institution, VE invests significant resources in the learning of its

137
employees, opens the door to positions of power, and persistently strives to expand the voices
and perspectives around its leadership table.
Conclusion
This study is one case of an organization-based sponsorship program. What might one
learn from a single case? If the reader is a member of an organization similar to VE or holds
similar goals for leveling access to leadership opportunities, perhaps plenty. One sponsor’s
description of the importance of sponsorship crystallized the role the program plays in solving
for the luck factor and providing access to leadership pathways:
[It’s] imperative. I don’t think it can be done without [sponsorship] … The natural
tendency is for affinity bias. … I've been in … multiple financial services companies and
I see affinity bias all the time and … it's not intentional but it's natural. [Affinity bias
means] that people … gravitate towards people that they feel … similarities with. … I
have my own affinity biases too … so it's so important to have someone who has
someone else's ear to really move that discussion as to advancement. …you need at least
one executive with a voice and with … influence to push it. (Vivienne)
Organizations have the power to ignite and sustain change through intentional sponsorship.
Envisioning the leadership seats at the table filled with diverse perspectives, enlightened by new
voices and shaped by different life experiences, can spark that kind of change. Understanding the
synergistic benefit of diversity for both individuals and organizational outcomes points to the
value of an intentionally designed sponsorship program. When implemented well, like the VE
example illustrates, such a program can bring visibility and voice to employees from
underrepresented groups or disadvantaged backgrounds, and this accelerates change. Equipping
future leaders to navigate challenges on the journey to senior leadership can make the vision of a

138
diverse leadership team a reality. For organizations that truly believe people are the most
important asset for success, now is the time to counterbalance luck in the equation and create
formal sponsorship programs for future leaders.

139
ReferencesAbu-Rabia-Queder, S. (2017). The paradox of professional marginality among Arab-
Bedouin women. Sociology, 51(5), 1084-1100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516641621
Accenture. (2020). Sponsorship of women drives innovation and improves organizational
performance [White paper]. https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-119/Accenture-
Sponsorship-Women-Drives-Innovation.pdf
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality
associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and
practice. Journal of applied psychology, 91(3), 567-578. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.91.3.567
Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2015). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. SAGE
publications, Inc.
Ang, J. (2019). The sponsorship model. Emerald Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-295-020191007
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2007). American Psychological Association.
Athanasopoulou, A., Moss‐Cowan, A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. (2018). Claiming the corner
office: Female CEO careers and implications for leadership development. Human
resource management, 57(2), 617-639. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21887
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122-147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action : a social cognitive theory.
(Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory)

140
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90022-L (Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes)
Beckwith, A. L. P., Carter, D. R. D. M., & Peters, T. P. (2016, June). The underrepresentation of
African American women in executive leadership: What's getting in the way? Journal of
Business Studies Quarterly, 7(4), 115-134.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1807470842?accountid=88321
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to
perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of counseling psychology,
28(5), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.28.5.399
Block, C. J., Noumair, D. A., & Vinkenburg, C. J. (2017). Engaging gatekeepers, optimizing
decision making, and mitigating bias: Design specifications for systemic diversity
interventions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 212-234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317703292
Bono, J. E., Braddy, P. W., Liu, Y., Gilbert, E. K., Fleenor, J. W., Quast, L. N., & Center, B. A.
(2017). Dropped on the way to the top: Gender and managerial derailment. Personnel
Psychology, 70(4), 729-768. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12184
Brashear-Alejandro, T., Barksdale, H., Bellenger, D. N., Boles, J. S., & James, C. (2019).
Mentoring characteristics and functions: mentoring’s influence on salespeople. The
Journal of business & industrial marketing, 34(2), 303-316.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-09-2017-0223
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., Hitchcock, J. H., & Patton, M. Q. (2020).
Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner.

141
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2016). Women face a labyrinth: an examination of metaphors for
women leaders. Gender in management, 31(8), 514-527. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-
2015-0007
Catalyst. (2011). Sponsoring Women to Success. Retrieved March, 2021 from
https://www.catalyst.org/research/sponsoring-women-to-success/
Caver, K., & Livers, A. (2021). The paradox of the seed and soil: Cultivating inclusive
leadership for a “new normal”. Leadership (London, England), 17(1), 18-31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020976201
Center for Talent Innovation. (2019). The sponsor dividend. https://coqual.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/CoqualTheSponsorDividend_KeyFindingsCombined090720.pd
f
Chanland, D. E., & Murphy, W. M. (2018). Propelling diverse leaders to the top: A
developmental network approach. Human resource management, 57(1), 111-126.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21842
Choi, S. (2019). Breaking through the glass ceiling: Social capital matters for women's career
success? International Public Management Journal, 22(2), 295-320.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2018.1425225
Cirincione-Ulezi, N. (2020). Black women and barriers to leadership in ABA. Behavior analysis
in practice, 13(4), 719-724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00444-9
Cline, P. E. (2018). The role of mentoring in the careers of female airline transport pilots.
International journal of aviation, aeronautics, and aerospace, 5(1), 9.
https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2018.1206

142
Cohen, J. R., Dalton, D. W., Holder-Webb, L. L., & McMillan, J. J. (2020). An analysis of glass
ceiling perceptions in the accounting profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(1), 17-
38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4054-4
Coleman, M. (2020). Women leaders in the workplace: Perceptions of career barriers, facilitators
and change. Irish educational studies, 39(2), 233-253.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2019.1697952
Cornish, T., & Morgan, J. (2017). Sponsor toolkit: The diversifying leadership programme
[White paper]. www.lfhe.ac.uk/DLSponsorToolkit
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 1989.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Dahlvig, J. E., & Longman, K. A. (2010). Women's leadership development: A study of defining
moments. Christian higher education (London, UK), 9(3), 238-258.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15363750903182177
Delgado, M. Y., & Ozuna Allen, T. (2019). Case studies of women of color leading community
colleges in Texas: Navigating the leadership pipeline through mentoring and culture.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(10-11), 718-729.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1600609
Deloitte Global Center for Corporate Governance. (2019). Women in the boardroom: A global
perspective. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/risk/articles/women-in-the-
boardroom-global-perspective.html

143
Dezsö, C. L., & Ross, D. G. (2012). Does female representation in top management improve
firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic management journal, 33(9),
1072-1089. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1955
Dzubinski, L., Diehl, A., & Taylor, M. (2019). Women’s ways of leading: the environmental
effect. Gender in management, 34(3), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-11-2017-
0150
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth. Harvard Business School Press.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
Farrow, L. (2008). The experiences of minority women leaders as mentees in US organizations.
Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(2), 25-42.
Gallimore, R., Tharp, R. G., & V., J.-S. (1992). The developmental and sociocultural
foundations of mentoring. Columbia University Inst. for Urban Minority
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 292).
Gandhi, M., & Johnson, M. (2016). Creating more effective mentors: Mentoring the mentor.
AIDS and behavior, 20(S2), 294-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1364-3
Gee, M. (2018). Why aren’t Black employees getting more white collar jobs? Retrieved February
11 from https://hbr.org/2018/02/why-arent-black-employees-getting-more-white-collar-
jobs
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Grant, A. M., & Patil, S. V. (2012). Challenging the norm of self-interest: Minority influence and
transitions to helping norms in work units. The Academy of Management Review, 37(4),
547-568. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0437

144
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological review, 102(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.102.1.4
Hayes, T. L., Kaylor, L. E., & Oltman, K. A. (2020). Coffee and controversy: How applied
psychology can revitalize sexual harassment and racial discrimination training. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 13(2), 117-136.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.84
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). Handbook of emergent methods. Guilford Press.
Hewlett, S. (2019). The Sponsor Effect (1 ed.). Harvard Business Review Press.
Hewlett, S. A., Peraino, K., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2010). The sponsor effect: Breaking
through the last glass ceiling. H. B. Review. https://30percentclub.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/The-Sponsor-Effect.pdf
Huston, W. M., Cranfield, C. G., Forbes, S. L., & Leigh, A. (2019). A sponsorship action plan
for increasing diversity in STEMM. Ecology and Evolution, 9(5), 2340-2345.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4962
Ibarra, H., Carter, N. M., & Silva, C. (2010). Why men still get more promotions than women.
Harvard Business Review, 88(9), 80-126.
Jiang, W., Gu, Q., & Tang, T. L.-P. (2019). Do victims of supervisor bullying suffer from poor
creativity? Social cognitive and social comparison perspectives. Journal of Business
Ethics, 157(3), 865-884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3660-x
Jin, M., Lee, J., & Lee, M. (2017). Does leadership matter in diversity management? Assessing
the relative impact of diversity policy and inclusive leadership in the public sector.

145
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(2), 303-319.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2015-0151
Johnson, B. R., & Christiensen, L. (2014). Educational Research (5th ed.). Sage.
Karambelkar, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2017). Onboarding is a change. Human Resource
Management International Digest, 25(7), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-04-2017-
0073
Kempster, S. (2009). Observing the invisible. Journal of Management Development, 28(5), 439-
456. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910955976
Kempster, S., & Parry, K. (2014). Exploring observational learning in leadership development
for managers. The Journal of management development, 33(3), 164-181.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2012-0016
King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A. (2012).
Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging
developmental experiences. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1835-1866.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365902
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Four levels of training evaluation.
Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2016). Strategic and regulatory approaches to
increasing women in leadership: Multilevel targets and mandatory quotas as levers for
cultural change. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(3), 395-419.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2069-z

146
Kotsis, S. V., & Chung, K. C. (2013). Application of the "see one, do one, teach one" concept in
surgical training. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 131(5), 1194-1201.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318287a0b3
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
SAGE.
Laud, R. L., & Johnson, M. (2013). Journey to the top: are there really gender differences in the
selection and utilization of career tactics? Journal of organizational culture,
communication and conflict, 17(1), 51.
Leadership Circle. (n.d.). Leadership circle profile.
https://leadershipcircle.com/en/products/leadership-circle-profile/
Levine, R. B., Ayyala, M. S., Skarupski, K. A., Bodurtha, J. N., Fernández, M. G., Ishii, L. E., &
Fivush, B. (2021). "It's a little different for men”-sponsorship and gender in academic
medicine: A qualitative study. Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 36(1), 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05956-2
Lewis, A. E., & Embrick, D. G. (2016). Working at the intersection of race and public policy:
The promise (and perils) of putting research to work for societal transformation.
Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 2(3), 253-262.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649216651071
Liang, J., & Gong, Y. (2013). Capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoring received during
early career: The moderating role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34(8), 1182-1201. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1849

147
Lyons, P. R., & Bandura, R. P. (2019). Exploring linkages of performance with metacognition.
The Journal of management development, 38(3), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-
07-2018-0192
Magrane, D., Morahan, P., Ambrose, S., & Dannels, S. (2018). Competencies and practices in
academic engineering leadership development: Lessons from a national survey. Social
sciences (Basel), 7(10), 171. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7100171
McDonagh, K. J., & Paris, N. M. (2013). The leadership labyrinth: leveraging the talents of
women to transform health care. Nursing administration quarterly, 37(1), 6-12.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NAQ.0b013e3182751327
McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2013). Access denied: Low mentoring of women and
minority first-time directors and its negative effect on appointments to additional boards.
The Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1169-1198.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43589210
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. ((n.d)). Microaggression. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved
May 6, 2021 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microaggression
Morgan, D. L. (2017). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach.
Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544304533
Morgan, P. J., Scott, H. A., Young, M. D., Plotnikoff, R. C., Collins, C. E., & Callister, R.
(2014). Associations between program outcomes and adherence to Social Cognitive
theory tasks: Process evaluation of the SHED-IT community weight loss trial for men.

148
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 11(1), 89-89.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-014-0089-9
Nash, M., & Moore, R. (2019). 'I was completely oblivious to gender': an exploration of how
women in STEMM navigate leadership in a neoliberal, post-feminist context. Journal of
Gender Studies, 28(4), 449-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2018.1504758
Ng, T. W. H., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and
creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory
perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 101(1), 14-34.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029
O'Dwyer, M., & Richards, D. W. (2021). Occupational boundaries: Gender capital and career
progression in the financial planning industry. Financial Planning Review, 4:e1123.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cfp2.1123
Orbach, R. (2017, August). Bringing talent off the bench and into the game: The
underrepresentation of women in the boardroom. Fordham Journal of Corporate &
Financial Law, 22(2), 202-256.
https://doi.org/http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/207
7466961?accountid=14749
Paddison, D. (2013). Guided sponsorship: The ultimate tool for internal talent sourcing. Leader
to Leader, 2013(67), 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20056
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
PricewaterhouseCoopers International. (2016). The PWC diversity journey: Creating impact,
achieving results [White paper]. www.pwc.com/diversityjourney

149
Quinn, K. G., Wolfe, H., & Vergeront, J. (2020). “Don’t deny yourself a seat at the table”:
Supporting the leadership development of MSM of color in HIV services. Health
promotion practice, 21(5), 838-848. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839919850563
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Gibson, C. B., & Batts, S. I. (2021). Increasing career advancement
opportunities through sponsorship: An identity-based model with illustrative application
to cross-race mentorship of African Americans. Group & organization management,
46(1), 105-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120978003
Rathi, S. (2018). Glass Ceiling: Break the invisible barrier. [Report]. Asian Journal of
Management.
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Richard, O. C., McKay, P. F., Garg, S., & Pustovit, S. (2019). The impact of supervisor-
subordinate racial-ethnic and gender dissimilarity on mentoring quality and turnover
intentions: do positive affectivity and communal culture matter? International journal of
human resource management, 30(22), 3138-3165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1344288
Rink, F., Stoker, J. I., Ryan, M. K., Steffens, N. K., & Nederveen Pieterse, A. (2019). Gender
differences in how leaders determine succession potential: The role of interpersonal fit
with followers. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(MAY).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00752
Ruiz-Jiménez, J. M., Fuentes-Fuentes, M. d. M., & Ruiz-Arroyo, M. (2016). Knowledge
combination capability and innovation: The effects of gender diversity on top
management teams in technology-based firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 503-
515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2462-7

150
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training
and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological science in the
public interest, 13(2), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661
Samuelson, H. L., Levine, B. R., Barth, S. E., Wessel, J. L., & Grand, J. A. (2019). Exploring
women's leadership labyrinth: Effects of hiring and developmental opportunities on
gender stratification. The Leadership quarterly, 30(6), 101314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101314
Saunders, W. M., Goldenberg, C. N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by
focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-
experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4),
1006-1033. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333185
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (Fifth edition. ed.).
Wiley.
Schlamp, S., Gerpott, F. H., & Voelpel, S. C. (2020). Same talk, different reaction?
Communication, emergent leadership and gender. Journal of managerial psychology,
36(1), 51-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2019-0062
Schultz, T., Shoobridge, J., Harvey, G., Carter, L., & Kitson, A. (2019). Building capacity for
change: evaluation of an organisation-wide leadership development program. Australian
health review, 43(3), 335-344. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH17158
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A Social Capital theory of career success.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069452

151
Singh, S., & Vanka, S. (2020). Mentoring is essential but not sufficient: sponsor women for
leadership roles. Development and learning in organizations, 34(6), 25-28.
https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-05-2019-0100
Smithson, J. (2000, 01/01). Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities.
International Journal of Methodology: Theory and Practice, 3, 103-119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/136455700405172
Stewart, C. (2016). How diverse is your pipeline? Developing the talent pipeline for women and
black and ethnic minority employees. Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(2), 61-66.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-09-2015-0059
Swerzenski, J., Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald T., Hoyt, Eric. (2020). Where are all the hispanic
executives. Retrieved February 11 from https://theconversation.com/where-are-the-
hispanic-executives-128981
Thomas, G. (2011, 2011/07/01). A typology for the case study in social science following a
review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511-521.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411409884
Tomlinson, J., Muzio, D., Sommerlad, H., Webley, L., & Duff, L. (2013). Structure, agency and
career strategies of White women and Black and minority ethnic individuals in the legal
profession. Human Relations, 66(2), 245-269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712460556
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. (Eds.). (2014). Youth resistance research and theories of change.
Routledge.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2008). National aggregate report by NAICS-
2 code: 52 - finance and insurance [Searchable Online Database].

152
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeo-1/2008-eeo-1-national-aggregate-report-naics-2-code-52-
finance-and-insurance
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2018). Job patterns for minorties and
women in private industry [Searchable online database].
U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation's
human capital.
Vinkenburg, C. J. (2017). Engaging gatekeepers, optimizing decision making, and mitigating
bias: Design specifications for systemic diversity interventions. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 53(2), 212-234.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317703292
Vollmer, S. (2017, January). How to sponsor diversity in the leadership ranks. Journal of
Accountancy, 223(1), 36-38.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1858085440?accountid=88321
Waterman, R. H., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business
horizons, 23(3), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(80)90027-0
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive theory of organizational management. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361. https://doi.org/10.2307/258173
Wyatt, M., & Silvester, J. (2015). Reflections on the labyrinth: Investigating black and minority
ethnic leaders’ career experiences. Human Relations, 68(8), 1243-1269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714550890

153
Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Protégé

Introduction to the Interview:
Hi, I’m Genevieve and I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. Your time is
valuable, and your voice is a very important part of this study.

The research I am doing is to learn more about the experience individuals have during and/or
after participation in the sponsorship program. The overarching issue I hope to address is how
to increase diversity at the leadership level. With a research interview such as this, I will first
cover items about the research and flow of the interview session, then proceed with questions. I
would like to confirm that you received the Study Information Sheet for Exempt Research and
ask if you have any follow-up questions. Your participation is voluntary, and you are able to skip
any items you prefer not to answer and can stop the interview at any time. The information
shared with me will not be able to be identified with specific individuals. I will use pseudonyms
to protect anonymity. You will also have the opportunity to review any direct quotes I use in the
study.

It is important that I have your consent to participate in the study. Would you confirm that you
consent to be a part of this study? To help ensure I can gather complete information, do I have
permission to record the interview? (If consent is not given, the interview may continue with
consent to take notes.) Thank you. You should see the notice in MS Teams about the recording of
the interview. I also will be taking notes during the interview. Are you comfortable with this?
Thank you. Any final questions prior to starting? Let’s begin then.

Interview Questions
[participants]
Potential Probes RQ Key Concept
Addressed
Q Type
(Patton)
1.Describe to me how you
were selected for the
program.
How did you feel
when you were
selected?
How did it fit with
what else was going
on at work at that
time?
RQ1 &
2
SCT
Environment
Behavior/
Experiences

Feelings/
emotions in
probe
2.What were your
expectations, if any, as you
entered the program?
Where do you think
those expectations
came from?
RQ2 SCT
Individual
Opinions/
values
3. What were your previous
experiences with sponsorship,
if any?
RQ2 Background Behavior/
Experiences
4.Tell me about some of the
times you had a chance to talk
to your sponsor.
Describe…
See what they mention
first…
You mentioned xxx,
could you describe
RQ2 Behavior &
Individual
(SCT)
Sensory

154
that to me in more
detail?
How did you feel
during the
interactions?
5.Tell me about other times
you interacted with your
sponsor.
You mentioned xxx.
How did you feel
when that happened?
What did you do after
that interaction?
(look for times that
maybe they initiated
the interaction)
Probes for similarities
or difference
RQ2 Behavior
(SCT)
Environment
(SCT)
Sensory

6.Describe some of the ways
your sponsor was helpful, if
in anyway, during the
program.
Which did you find
helpful, if any? Which
did you find unhelpful,
if any?
RQ2 SCT learning
observation
Opinion/
values
7.How would you describe
your career journey so far?
[read if this is a good
time to ask or later]
To what do you
attribute the success or
challenges if any?
RQ2 SCT
Individual
Behavior/
Experiences
8.I understand you also had
the opportunity to participate
in coaching sessions as part of
the program. Would you
describe to me some of those
sessions?
What did you find
helpful, if anything?
RQ2 SCT
Individual
SCT
Behavior
Opinions
Behavior/
Experiences
9.As you think about the
interactions with the sponsor
or coach, how would you
describe the influences of
each on your career
opportunities, if at all?
RQ2 SCT
Individual
Opinion/
values
10.Think back to your time in
the program. What different
opportunities at work
occurred during that time, if
any?
You mentioned xxx,
earlier. Could you tell
me about how that
opportunity came to
be?
What was it like to…?
RQ2 SCT
Environment
Knowledge
or sensory
11.What words come to mind
to describe your feelings
while participating in the
program?
Tell me more about… RQ2 SCT
Individual
Feelings/
Emotions

155
12.Where do you see yourself
heading in your career now?
What do you see in the
next 3-5 years?
How do you feel about
that?
RQ2 SCT
Individual
Opinions/
values
13.What did you find to be
useful about the program, if
anything?
RQ2 SCT
Individual
Opinion/
values
14.What suggestions do you
have for improving the
program, if anything?
RQ1&
RQ3
Improvement Opinion/
values
15.If you were asked to
recommend a peer for the
program, does anyone come
to mind?
What would you look
for in someone who
you would recommend
for the program?
RQ1&
RQ3
Evolution Opinion/
values
16. Anything else you’d like
to share?
Opinion/
Values

Conclusion to the Interview:
Thank you, again, for taking the time to participate in this study to better understand the
experience of those in the sponsorship program. As I mentioned at the beginning of the
interview, I will contact you to review any direct quotes that will appear in the study. However,
the quotes will not able to be connected to you or any specific individual. Please feel free to send
me an email if you have additional thoughts or ideas you would like to add, as well as any
questions.

[note to self during analysis: It is their story – so LISTEN for their story in their words.]

Adaptation to the interview protocol as interviews could not be conducted in person:
Interviews were conducted via MS Teams. Audio and/or video was only recorded with the
explicit permission of the interviewee, and the researcher will destroy the recording once the
recording is no longer needed for the purpose of this study. To protect the interviewee, the
recording feature was turned off by default when starting each meeting with the interviewees
until permission to commence recording is obtained from the interviewee. The interviewee could
choose to be on or off camera. If the interviewee was not comfortable with a recording, even in
an audio only format where their video is blank and name is masked, permission was requested
to record using a phone or other device. Finally, if an interviewee did not provide approval to
record the session in any form, the researcher took notes during the meeting by hand to capture
the interviewee’s responses to my protocol questions.

156

Appendix B: Protégé Pre-Interview Questionnaire
The questionnaire included nominal, ordinal, and interval scaled items, closed-ended
items, as well as open-ended items. The following were chosen from an item bank reviewed by
IRB which included all items from the GSE and LSE surveys referenced at the end of the survey.
after reviewing the partner organization’s documentation and meeting with the site representative
to understand what information for each participant was already collected as part of the
organization’s sponsorship program. Due to the small number of respondents, questionnaires will
be distributed using MS Teams forms and results stored in password protected file on the cloud.

Introduction: Thank you for participating in the research interview. Please complete the
following questionnaire at least 48 hours before your scheduled interview. The questionnaire is
part of a study approved by SSG to understand its sponsorship program.

The questionnaire includes items about your experience in the program as well as items that ask
for your opinion on how you approach situations or leadership experiences. Your responses will
be kept confidential, known only to yourself and the researcher. Any information shared in the
research report will be in aggregate form.

The questionnaire should take about 10 minutes to complete.

Question Open or
Closed?
Level of
Measurem
ent(nomina
l, ordinal,
interval,
ratio)
Response options (if
close-ended)
RQ Concept being
measured
(from
emerging
conceptual
framework)
1.Please type your name as
the form will not
automatically collect your
name or email.
Open Demographic
2.Select your length of time
at the organization.
closed ordinal 0-3 years, over 3 to 6
years, over 6 to 10
years, over 10 years
Demographic
3.How many years have you
been in this industry or in
comparable work?
closed ordinal 0-3 years, over 3 to 6
years, over 6 to 10
years, over 10 years
Demographic
4.How beneficial is (was) the
sponsorship program
experience for you?
Closed ordinal 1 = not beneficial at
all, 2 = somewhat
beneficial; 3 =
beneficial; 4 = very
beneficial
RQ2 Perception of
the benefit of
the program.
5.Please share an important
area of growth you
experienced over the past 2-3
years, if any. (approximately
4-6 sentences).
Open RQ2 Perception
self-identified
important area
of growth.

157
6.Who or what most
influenced this area of
growth? (approximately 2-3
sentences)
Open RQ2 Perception of
the influence
of the
environment,
behavior, or
self on change.
7.This set of items asks you to rate each statement on a scale from "not at all true" to "exactly true."

I can always manage to solve
difficult problems if I try hard
enough
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
If someone opposes me, I can
find the means and ways to
get what I want.
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
It is easy for me to stick to
my aims and accomplish my
goals.
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
I am confident that I could
deal efficiently with
unexpected events.
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
Thanks to my
resourcefulness, I know how
to handle unforeseen
situations.
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
I can solve most problems if I
invest the necessary effort.
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
I can remain calm when
facing difficulties because I
can rely on my coping
abilities.
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
When I am confronted with a
problem, I can usually find
several solutions.
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
If I am in trouble, I can
usually think of a solution.
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
I can usually handle whatever
comes my way.
Closed ordinal 1=Not at all true
2=Hardly true
3=Moderately true
4=Exactly true
RQ2 Generalized
Self-Efficacy
8.This set of items asks you to rate each statement on a scale from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly
Agree."

158

I am confident in my ability
to choose group members in
order to build up an effective
and efficient team
Closed ordinal Likert Scale 7 pt.
1 = strongly dis- agree
to 7 = strongly agree
RQ2 Choosing
effective
followers and
delegating
responsibilities
I am able to optimally share
out the work between the
members of a group to get the
best results
Closed ordinal Likert Scale 7 pt.
1 = strongly dis- agree
to 7 = strongly agree
RQ2 Choosing
effective
followers and
delegating
responsibilities
I would be able to delegate
the task of accomplishing
specific goals to other group
members
Closed ordinal Likert Scale 7 pt.
1 = strongly dis- agree
to 7 = strongly agree
RQ2 Choosing
effective
followers and
delegating
responsibilities
I am usually able to
understand to whom, within a
group, it is better to delegate
specific tasks
Closed ordinal Likert Scale 7 pt.
1 = strongly dis- agree
to 7 = strongly agree
RQ2 Choosing
effective
followers and
delegating
responsibilities
Usually, I can establish very
good relationships with the
people I work with

Closed ordinal Likert Scale 7 pt.
1 = strongly dis- agree
to 7 = strongly agree
RQ2 Building and
managing
interpersonal
relationships
within the
group
I am sure I can communicate
with others, going straight to
the heart of the matter
Closed ordinal Likert Scale 7 pt.
1 = strongly dis- agree
to 7 = strongly agree
RQ2 Building and
managing
interpersonal
relationships
within the
group
I can successfully manage
relationships with all the
members of a group
Closed ordinal Likert Scale 7 pt.
1 = strongly dis- agree
to 7 = strongly agree
RQ2 Building and
managing
interpersonal
relationships
within the
group
I identify my race/ethnicity
as: (Select all that apply.
These are typical options
used by the University. Please
write in a different one if
needed.)

Closed Nominal

Demographic
To which gender identity to
you most identify? (These are
typical options used by the
Closed Nominal female, male,
transgender female,
transgender male,
Demographic

159
University. Please write in a
different one if needed.)

gender non-
conforming, prefer to
self-describe, prefer
not to answer

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S.
Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control
beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON. [Item 7]

Self-Efficacy in Leadership Adapted from:
Bobbio, A., & Manganelli A. M. Spring 2009 © 2009 Cises Multidimensional Leadership Self-
Efficacy Scale [Item 8 used seven out of original 21 and included all items within a cluster]

160
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Studies
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Organizational Change Leadership Program
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

RESEARCH INFORMATION SHEET

STUDY TITLE: Creating Equity of Access to Leadership Opportunities: The Role of
Organization-Based Sponsorship for Members of Underrepresented Groups

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Genevieve Graff-Ermeling

FACULTY ADVISOR: Monique Datta, EdD

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of participants in an organization-based
sponsorship program. It will also explore what factors led to the creation of the sponsorship
program and the design of the program, as well as how the program can evolve and improve. We
hope to understand if, and then how, the program influences the participants’ professional
growth and access to leadership opportunities. Additionally, we hope to learn about the journey
of the design of the program and the degree to which part(s) of the program prove especially
influential, if any, and how the program might continue to improve. You are invited as a possible
participant because you are currently participating in the sponsorship program, have participated
in the program in the past, are a current or past sponsor, or are a member of the team responsible
for designing and/or implementing the program.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
The participants for the individual interview portion of the study will include approximately 12-
20 current and past participants (protégé) in the sponsorship program. Approximately 5-12 past
or current sponsors will participate in a focus group(s). In addition, participants of another focus
group will include select members of the leadership team involved in the design and
implementation of the program, as determined by the organization.

Interview participants will be asked to fill out a pre-interview questionnaire and participate in a
one-hour interview conducted either in person or via video conferencing software. Participants
will have the opportunity to review direct quotes for accuracy and representation of experiences
and opinions. Participants may be asked follow-up questions via email. Participants may also

161
participate in a follow up interview if desired and time permits. Interviews will be recorded and
transcribed. Once transcribed and verified, the audio/video recordings will be deleted. The
participant can decline to be recorded and still participate in the interview.

Focus-group members will be asked to participate in a ninety minute session. A small
commitment of time may be required for follow-up for member-checking of quotes will occur
via email or phone/video conference. The group can decline to be recorded and still participate in
the session.

If you decide to take part in the interview, you will be asked to
1. Fill out a pre-interview questionnaire
2. Participate in a sixty-minute interview, in person or via video conferencing software
3. Provide feedback for accuracy of direct quotes (optional for the interviewee)
4. Provide feedback on initial findings and themes as representing interviewee’s experience
(optional for the interviewee)

If you decide to take part in the focus group, you will be asked to
1. Participate in a ninety-minute focus group, in person or via video conferencing software
2. Provide feedback for accuracy of direct quotes attributed to the focus group (optional)
3. Provide feedback on initial findings and themes as representing the focus group’s
experiences (optional)

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no compensation or payment for participation in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published, no identifiable information will be used.

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with the
participants will remain strictly confidential between the researcher and individual participant.
Confidentiality will be maintained by means of assigning pseudonyms and reviewing quotes for
personally identifiable language. Findings shared with the leadership team will be in aggregate
form and include themes, trends, and/or composite findings to protect the confidentiality of
participants. Because of the nature of a Focus Group, those participating will agree to protect
confidentiality for members of the group. Excerpts from focus groups may be used but will not
include any personal identifiers without permission of participants.

Only the principal researcher and the USC Internal Review Board and Chair will know the identity
of the organization and will keep the information confidential. Pseudonyms and composites will
be used to protect confidentiality within the dissertation. The organization will have the
opportunity to review the written description of the organization to ensure confidentiality will be
maintained. Participants will be able to review their own transcripts and check direct quotes.

162

Raw data will be retained by the researcher for a maximum of three years. Audio or video
recordings will only be accessible to the principal researcher and transcriber, and will be erased
upon completion of the study. The participant may request to review their individual transcript.
Use of information in the Executive Summary will be at the discretion of the organization’s
leadership team.

Due to the nature of focus groups, your confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. However, in order
to maintain the confidentiality of the group, you are asked not to discuss the content of the group
with anyone not in the group, or to discuss who participated in the focus group.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Genevieve Graff-Ermeling at
grafferm@usc.edu or Monique Datta, EdD at mdatta@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

163
Appendix D: Focus Group Interview Protocol
Introduction to the Focus Group:
Good afternoon and welcome. I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. My
name is Genevieve Graff-Ermeling and I’m with the University of Southern California
conducting doctoral research. The research I am doing focuses on how we might create more
diversity at the leadership level. The goal is to learn more about the experience individuals have
during and after participation in the sponsorship program, as well as the genesis and design of
the program and how the program might continue to evolve. With a research focus group such
as this, I will first cover necessary items about the research and confidentiality and flow of the
interview session, then proceed with questions.

You were invited to the focus group because you are a member of the leadership team who is
part of the design and implementation of the program or you have served as a sponsor. Your
insights will be very helpful. There are no wrong answers but rather differing experiences,
perspectives, and points of view. Please feel free to share your point of view even if it differs
from what others have said. As you reviewed the topics, there were likely areas you feel you
know more about. Not everyone is expected to answer every question. Anyone who wants to
contribute, including building on the ideas of others as we hear them, is certainly welcome to do
so.

I would like to confirm that you received the Study Information Sheet and ask if you have any
follow-up questions. Your participation is voluntary, and you are able to skip any items you
prefer not to answer and can stop participating at any time. As with any focus group,
confidentiality will be maintained within the group, so I ask that we all agree that what is shared
in this group will be kept confidential among the group. The information shared with me will not
be able to be identified with specific individuals. The exact participants of this focus group will
not be shared in the report. You will also have the opportunity to review any direct quotes I use
in the study.

It is important that I have the group’s consent to participate in the study. Would you all verbally
confirm that you consent to be a part of this study? To help ensure I can gather complete
information, do I have permission to record the focus group? People often say very helpful
things in these discussions, and I can't write fast enough to get them all down. If not, we can still
proceed. I also will be taking notes during the interview. Are you comfortable with this? Thank
you. Let’s begin then.

Focus Group Questions
[participants]
Potential Probes
OR Lead-ins
RQ Key Concept
Addressed
Q Type
(Krueger &
Casey)
1.Would you share your name,
current role, and one thing you
enjoy about your role?
How have you
been involved
with the
sponsorship
program, if at all?
N/A N/A Opening

164
2.I’ve read in the public
documents that inclusion and
diversity has been important to
the organization. Could you
share what other things you are
doing beyond the sponsorship
program?
RQ1&
RQ3
How
sponsorship
may relate to
goals for
diversity and
inclusion
Introductory
3.Share with me the genesis of
the sponsorship program. (10-20
min)
While individuals
share, note any
areas for follow-
up.
RQ1 SCT
Environment
KEY
question
4.Describe to me what you look
for in protégés for this program?
(10 min)
RQ1 SCT
Individual
(look for
markers of
self-efficacy
or reflection)
KEY
question
5.Describe for me some of the
key attributes of a sponsor for
this program?
(10 min)
[see how well this
was addressed in
transition
question]
RQ1 SCT
Modeling/
Behavior
KEY
question
6.What are the key pillars (parts?
components?) of this program?
(5-10 min)
RQ1 SCT
Environment
KEY
question
7.The program is in its third year.
How much has the program
evolved, if any, with each new
cohort?
RQ3 Evolution Transition
question
8. Does anything come to mind
that we should have talked about
by didn’t? Anything else you
think would be important for me
to know to inform the study?
Final
Summary
question

Conclusion to the Focus Group:
Thank you, again, for taking the time to participate in this study to better understand the genesis
and design of the program, as well as perspectives from the leadership team. As I mentioned at
the beginning of the focus group, I will contact you to review any direct quotes that will appear
in the study. However, the quotes will not able to be connected to any specific individual.

[note to self during analysis: It is their story – so LISTEN for their story in their words.]

Adaptation to the interview protocol as the focus group could not be conducted in person:
The focus group was conducted via MS Teams. Audio and/or video was only recorded with the
explicit permission of the group, and the researcher will destroy the recording once the recording
is no longer needed for the purpose of this study. To protect the focus group members, the

165
recording feature was turned off by default when starting each meeting with the interviewees
until permission to commence recording is obtained. The focus group member could choose to
be on or off camera. If the focus group was not comfortable with a recording, even in an audio
only format where their video is blank and name is masked, permission was requested to record
using a phone or other device. Finally, if a participant did not provide approval to record the
session in any form, the researcher took notes during the meeting by hand to capture the
interviewee’s responses to my protocol questions.

166
Appendix E: Sponsor Interview Protocol
Introduction to the Interview:
Hi, I’m Genevieve and I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. Your time is
valuable, and your voice is a very important part of this study.

The research I am doing is to learn more about the experience individuals have during and/or
after participation in the sponsorship program. The overarching issue I hope to address is how
to increase diversity at the leadership level. With a research interview such as this, I will first
cover items about the research and flow of the interview session, the proceed with questions.

I would like to confirm that you received the Information Sheet for Exempt Research and ask if
you have any follow-up questions. Your participation is voluntary, and you are able to skip any
items you prefer not to answer and can stop the interview at any time. The information shared
with me is confidential. Anything shared in the dissertation or report will not be able to be
identified with specific individuals. You will also have the opportunity to review any direct
quotes I use in the study.

It is important that I have your consent to participate in the study. Would you confirm that you
consent to be a part of this study? To help ensure I can gather complete information, do I have
permission to record the interview? (If consent is not given, the interview may continue with
consent to take notes.) Thank you. You should see the notice in MS Teams about the recording of
the interview. Thank you. Any final questions prior to starting? Let’s begin then.

Interview Questions
[participants]
Potential Probes RQ Key
Concept
Addressed
Q Type
(Patton)
1.What prompted you to
serve as a sponsor in this
program?
Describe to me other
experiences you’ve had
with sponsorship – as a
sponsor or protégé.

RQ1
and
RQ2
Motivation Opinions/
values
2. What was it like serving as
a sponsor in this program?
How would you describe
your experience as a
sponsor?
Probe for positive or
negative

RQ1
and
RQ2
SCT Sensory

Feelings/
emotions
3. How did you view your
role as a sponsor?
What was important for
you to do or provide if
anything?
RQ1 SCT Opinions/
values
4.Would you describe to me
your sessions with the
protégé?

How about other
interactions with them
beyond these sessions?
RQ2 SCT Sensory

167
5.The program also provides
coaching for the protégé.
What was it like to sponsor
someone who was also
receiving coaching?
What worked well? Any
suggestions for
improvement?

RQ1
&
RQ2
SCT Behavior/
Experiences

6.What role do you think
sponsorship plays for helping
people reach that next level
or making a difference in
creating more diversity at the
leadership level?
What role do you think
this program plays in that
broader goal of the
organization to bring
more diversity to that
upper leadership level?
RQ1
&
RQ3
Leadership
Labyrinth
Opinions/
values
7. What would you tell future
sponsors?
RQ1
&
RQ3
Evolution of
program
Opinions/
values
8.What suggestions do you
have to improve the
program, if any?
What’s working well? RQ3 Evolution of
program
Opinions/
values

Conclusion to the Interview:
Thank you, again, for taking the time to participate in this study to better understand the
experience of those in the sponsorship program. As I mentioned at the beginning of the
interview, I will contact you to review any direct quotes that will appear in the study. However,
the quotes will not be able to be connected to you or any specific individual. Please feel free to
send me an email if you have additional thoughts or ideas you would like to add, as well as any
questions.

[note to self during analysis: It is their story – so LISTEN for their story in their words.]

Adaptation to the interview protocol as interviews could not be conducted in person:
Interviews were conducted via MS Teams. Audio and/or video was only recorded with the
explicit permission of the interviewee, and the researcher will destroy the recording once the
recording is no longer needed for the purpose of this study. To protect the interviewee, the
recording feature was turned off by default when starting each meeting with the interviewees
until permission to commence recording is obtained from the interviewee. The interviewee could
choose to be on or off camera. If the interviewee was not comfortable with a recording, even in
an audio only format where their video is blank and name is masked, permission was requested
to record using a phone or other device. Finally, if an interviewee did not provide approval to
record the session in any form, the researcher took notes during the meeting by hand to capture
the interviewee’s responses to my protocol questions.

168
Appendix F: Document and Artifact Analysis Protocol
The protocol includes the following steps and within each step, emerging language use
themes will be coded and analyzed:
1. Collection of document
2. Categorization of type of document
3. Analysis of topics for emerging themes
4. Content and discourse analysis for key words
5. Analysis of document use

Document
Description
Categorization
[Who
produced it?
Why? When?
Type of data?]
Topic(s)
addressed
[Code for
emerging
themes]
Topics that align to
categories affecting
career progression
Visibility, networks,
development,
supervisor support
Key word analysis
(e.g. learning,
support, advocacy,
indifferent,
modeling, inclusion)

How the
document
is used

Additional Source Used to Inform Document Analysis (source document)
Also of paramount importance when evaluating documents is not to consider the data as
“necessarily precise, accurate, or complete recordings of events that have occurred” (Bowen,
2009, p. 33). These issues are summed up in another eight-step process offered by O’Leary
(2014):
1. Gather relevant texts.
2. Develop an organization and management scheme.
3. Make copies of the originals for annotation.
4. Asses authenticity of documents.
5. Explore document’s agenda, biases.
6. Explore background information (e.g., tone, style, purpose).
7. Ask questions about document (e.g., Who produced it? Why? When? Type of data?).
8. Explore content.
Step eight refers to the process of exploring the “witting” evidence, or the actual content of the
documents, and O’Leary gives two major techniques for accomplishing this (2014). One is the
interview technique. In this case, the researcher treats the document like a respondent or
informant that provides the researcher with relevant information (O’Leary, 2014). The researcher
“asks” questions then highlights the answer within the text. The other technique is noting
occurrences, or content analysis, where the researcher quantifies the use of particular words,
phrases and concepts (O’Leary, 2014). Essentially, the researcher determines what is being
searched for, then documents and organizes the frequency and amount of occurrences within the
document. The information is then organized into what is “related to central questions of the
research” (Bowen, 2009, p. 32).

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Sustaining faith-based organizations through leadership pipelines and programs: an evaluation study

PDF

The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success

PDF

Factors influencing the success of Black male faculty at a Predominantly White Institution

PDF

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

PDF

Examining the journey of Black public education leaders

PDF

An analysis of the impact of Montessori education on Black children

PDF

Impact of training on leader's ability to effectively lead during a crisis

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

School district leadership and the motherhood penalty

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

Using culturally relevant pedagogy to increase access and engagement in STEM for historically underrepresented and marginalized populations

PDF

Success factors for global virtual team leaders: a qualitative study of leaders of global virtual teams in a global professional service firm employing grounded theory

PDF

Understanding conditions for executive coaching success from the leader's point of view

PDF

Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

Access to quality supplemental educational programs for K-12 students in underserved communities

PDF

Building capacity for equity, diversity, and inclusion in public library programs through community-led practices: an innovation model

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Modeling collaboration in K–12 teacher professional development

Asset Metadata

Creator Graff-Ermeling, Genevieve Joan (author)

Core Title Solving for the luck factor: leveling access to leadership through an organization-based sponsorship program

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 05/03/2022

Defense Date 04/13/2022

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

Tag agency,Development,diversity,glass ceiling,leadership,leadership access,leadership labyrinth,line-manager support,mentor,mentoring,Modeling,networks,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization,sponsor,sponsorship,sponsorship program,underrepresented groups,visibility

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Gallimore, Ronald (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email genevieve.ermeling@gmail.com,grafferm@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111208089

Unique identifier UC111208089

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Graff-Ermeling, Genevieve Joan

Type texts

Source 20220503-usctheses-batch-937 (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