The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0268-3946.htm

Women leaders’ views on Women

leaders’ views
demand-side strategies on demand-
side strategy
Alyson Byrne
Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland,
St. John’s, Canada
Ingrid C. Chadwick Received 20 March 2019
John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, and Revised 9 January 2020
5 May 2020
Amanda J. Hancock 11 June 2020
Accepted 20 August 2020
Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland,
St. John’s, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine female leaders’ attitudes toward demand-side strategies to
close the gender-leadership gap and discuss implications for organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – This article describes the process of knowledge co-creation that took
place using an engaged scholarship epistemology over 23 interviews with North American women in senior
leadership roles.
Findings – Five key themes related to women leaders’ attitudes toward demand-side strategies are discussed.
Some felt uncertain or opposed toward these strategies, whereas others supported them. Support for these
strategies was dependent on perceptions of backlash regarding the implementation of these strategies and the
participants’ career stage. Finally, participants acknowledged that demand-side strategies are insufficient in
isolation and require additional organizational supports.
Research limitations/implications – These findings enhance our understanding and provide theoretical
refinement of the mechanisms that drive female leaders’ reactions to demand-side strategies to close the gender-
leadership gap.
Practical implications – Participants advocated for certain practices to be considered when organizations
contemplate the adoption of demand-side strategies. Importantly, participants advocated that the
implementation of demand-side strategies would be insufficient unless organizations encourage greater
dialogue regarding the gender-leadership gap, that top management support more gender inclusive leadership,
and that male colleagues act as allies for women in leadership.
Originality/value – This article extends past research and theory by integrating the pragmatic perspectives
of successful female leaders with previous empirical evidence to illustrate different reactions to demand-side
strategies and ways for organizations to manage those in their efforts to close the gender-leadership gap.
Keywords Gender, Leadership, Demand-side strategies, Targets, Quotas, Engaged epistemology, Interviews
Paper type Research paper

Despite increased support for greater representation of women in leadership positions, women
remain scarce among senior leaders (Catalyst, 2020). This scarcity of women in leadership
continues to draw attention from scholars and practitioners alike. Although the literature on the
barriers holding women back from becoming leaders is abundant (e.g. Brescoll, 2016; Rudman
et al., 2012), less is known about how women can overcome these barriers (Athanasopoulou
et al., 2018; Glass and Cook, 2016) and the role organizations can play in addressing this
challenge. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct an in-depth investigation of
successful female leaders’ perspectives on the state of the gender-leadership gap and their

Special thanks to Meaghan Larkin and Dawn Murphy for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of
this manuscript. Journal of Managerial Psychology
Funding: This work was supported by a grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research © Emerald Publishing Limited
0268-3946
Council of Canada (Grant No. 430-2015-00735). DOI 10.1108/JMP-03-2019-0155
JMP assessments of organizational strategies used to address this inequity. We advanced this
research using an engaged scholarship epistemology (Van de Ven, 2007; Van de Ven and
Johnson, 2006), and adopted a collaborative form of inquiry, thus bridging an academic lens
regarding gender and leadership with practitioners’ experiences as leaders.
This article analyzes data from interviews with 23 women in senior leadership roles across
North America, focusing on their insights for increasing women in senior leadership
positions. Our data shed light on the theoretical distinctions between supply- and demand-
side strategies. Supply-side strategies are initiatives that support and increase the supply of
women to the pool of potential talent for leadership roles (Harrison et al., 2006); for example,
mentoring or women’s networking programs. In contrast, demand-side strategies are policy
interventions that encourage or require organizations to meet minimal standards for
representation of women in senior leadership roles (Pande and Ford, 2012); for example,
reporting requirements, gender targets or gender quotas (Sojo et al., 2016).
Our results suggest that most participants supported some form of demand-side strategy as
a viable option to close the gender-leadership gap. Although many participants acknowledged
their own psychological resistance to these demand-side strategies (Pande and Ford, 2012),
others perceived that alternative strategies for organizations to successfully close the gender-
leadership gap have been ineffective. Our results suggest that the degree to which female leaders
advocate for demand-side strategies is related to the tenure of their career stage and how they
interpret others’ perceived threats associated with these strategies. Importantly, participants
advocated that the implementation of such strategies is insufficient in isolation and emphasized
that organizations must also change the overall dialogue regarding gender and leadership, that
top management must be supportive, and that male colleagues should act as allies.
Ultimately, this study extends past research and theory by integrating the pragmatic
perspectives of successful female leaders with previous empirical evidence to illustrate
different reactions to demand-side strategies and ways for organizations to manage their
efforts to close the gender-leadership gap. Specifically, we address these controversial
strategies from the perspective of those who would have been most likely to benefit from
them, yet succeeded without them. Our findings show that female leaders indeed
acknowledge the controversial nature of demand-side strategies, but many perceive these
strategies as: (1) a potential alternative born out of frustration with a lack of progress; and (2)
a viable option to implement real change to close the gender-leadership gap if accompanied
by other relevant organizational changes. Additionally, our research offers insights into why
women come to adopt these views, which tend to change over time, illuminating the role of
women’s career stage for their support of demand-side strategies overall.

Strategies for the advancement of women in leadership

Supply-side strategies
Efforts to close the gap between men and women in senior leadership roles are varied (Lyness
and Grotto, 2018), yet they have not materialized in substantial changes (Catalyst, 2020). Many
organizations have instituted supply-side strategies to increase the quantity of women to the
pool of potential leadership talent (Harrison et al., 2006). These strategies include, but are not
limited to, formal mentoring programs, women’s networking programs, and women-only
leadership development opportunities. These programs have not generated the progress that
organizations and participants expected (Kalev et al., 2006). Though women often tout
mentorship as advantageous to leadership ascension (e.g. Ragins et al., 2000), males and females
are mentored differently, with males more likely to receive career-related support and
sponsorship necessary for promotion (Diehl and Dzubinski, 2016). Similarly, female networking
has been considered an opportunity for women to share learning experiences with other women
(Cross and Armstrong, 2008), and was created to address exclusion of women from male-
dominated networks (Ibarra, 1993). Although all-female networks generate positive attitudinal Women
outcomes (Pini et al., 2004), these opportunities have little impact on participants’ ability to leaders’ views
attain leadership roles (O’Neil et al., 2011). Finally, women-only leadership development is
designed to help advance women’s careers (Kassotakis, 2017) in a space that is safe for growth
on demand-
and development (Debebe et al., 2016; Ely et al., 2011). However, there is little quantifiable side strategy
evidence that these programs help to close the gender-leadership gap without systematic
organizational changes (Vinnicombe and Singh, 2003). In short, the literature indicates that
supply-side strategies have, thus far, been ineffective in closing the gender-leadership gap.

Demand-side strategies
In contrast, demand-side strategies encourage or require organizations to meet minimal
standards for representation of women in senior leadership (Pande and Ford, 2012). These
strategies are typically grouped into three categories (Sojo et al., 2016): (1) reporting
requirements, where organizations are required to disclose the gender breakdown of senior
leadership roles in annual public reports; (2) gender targets, where goals are set for the
expected percentage or number of women to either occupy or be nominated for leadership
positions; and (3) gender quotas, which are government or industry-mandated percentages of
representation or number of men and women in leadership positions and are backed by clear
enforcement mechanisms. These approaches tend to be controversial because their goal is to
address the historic differential treatment (e.g. discrimination) of members in
underrepresented groups by mandating differential treatment of these same individuals,
such as women (Harrison et al., 2006; Leslie et al., 2014; Shteynberg et al., 2011).
Accordingly, the use of demand-side strategies is often met with backlash from both
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike (e.g. Gillespie and Ryan, 2012; Hideg et al., 2011; Leslie
et al., 2014). Non-beneficiaries feel unfairly disadvantaged and fear the “best” applicant will be
overlooked in favor of hiring an unqualified applicant (Harrison et al., 2006; Hideg et al., 2011;
Noon, 2012). Beneficiaries are perceived as less qualified and less legitimate (Heilman and
Okimoto, 2007), which undervalues female leaders’ performance (Joshi et al., 2015). However,
given that demand-side strategies adopt goal-setting principles by encouraging organizations to
set specific, measurable and consequential goals (Locke and Latham, 2002), the implementation
of these strategies tends to positively impact the representation of women in leadership, politics,
and corporate boards (Morgenroth and Ryan, 2018; Sojo et al., 2016). Gender targets adopted by
corporate boards in the face of public pressure can improve gender diversity, even if only to
satisfy descriptive social norms (e.g. no more than two women per board; Chang et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, organizations continue to resist implementing demand-side tactics.

Approach to a complex problem

The empirical evidence on how to close the gender-leadership gap is at a critical juncture. On
the one hand, supply-side strategies tend to induce positive attitudes and behaviors, but do
little to close the gender-leadership gap. On the other hand, demand-side strategies are seen as
controversial and threatening to both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, yet have proven
effective in narrowing the gender-leadership gap. Given these current tensions, it is important
that scholars remain committed to understanding the nuanced reasons behind these tensions,
which allows for theoretical refinement and clearer practical implications for organizations.
To accomplish this research objective, we asked: “What should organizations do to increase
the number of women in senior leadership roles?”

Methods
Sample and data collection
We adopted an engaged scholarship approach, defined as “a collaborative form of inquiry in
which academics and practitioners leverage their different perspectives and competencies to
JMP coproduce knowledge about a complex problem or phenomenon” (Van de Ven and Johnson,
2006, p. 803). Specifically, we wanted to co-create an understanding of the most appropriate
strategies to increase the representation of women in senior leadership with women who have
been, or could have been, impacted by these strategies. This topic was approached as part of a
larger study on gender and leadership in which interviews were conducted to examine issues
of gender and leadership identity with successful women leaders. However, we also
acknowledged the opportunity to work with real-world informants to understand what
should be done to increase the number of women in leadership positions. We particularly
wanted to change the conversation in our interviews to understand the strategies and
opportunities to close the gender-leadership gap from the perspective of successful female
leaders.
We adopted a purposeful sampling method (e.g. Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Suri, 2011),
restricting the sample to women in senior leadership roles, with a minimum of 10 years of
leadership experience. Participants were recruited through multiple channels such as the
authors’ university newsletter, alumni from the authors’ executive education centers, and a
snowball sampling technique (Heckathorn, 1997) in which participants recommended other
women who fit the inclusion criteria. We selected to interview women in senior leadership,
rather than opening our sample to a wider audience, in order to learn from female leaders who
have successfully ascended into leadership roles and may offer valuable insights into what
organizations can do to support more women in leadership.
Interviews were conducted between May 2016 and May 2018. The women held
organizational positions with titles such as CEO, Vice-President, Dean or Director and were
employed in a wide range of industries, including banking, engineering, academia, health and
fashion. They ranged in age from approximately 38 to 70 years of age. All participants were
located in North America. To distinguish between participants and protect their identities,
pseudonyms were used. Table 1 provides participants’ demographic details. We conducted
interviews with 31 women in senior leadership roles as part of a larger study. For the purpose
of the research question in this study and the analytic techniques that we used to focus the
study on demand-side strategies, we used a subset of the data that only contained responses
that included discussions concerning demand-side strategies, which were present in 74% of
our interviews (i.e. 23 participants).
The data source consisted of 23 semi-structured interviews, which were voice-recorded
and professionally transcribed, with the exception of one interview, as that participant did
not want to be recorded. The interviewer took notes to capture that participant’s perspectives.
Interviews ranged in length from 45 to 150 minutes, averaging 75 minutes. The interviews
began the same way, with interviewers asking participants a variety of questions regarding
their gender and leadership identity, as part of a larger study. However, towards the end of
each interview, interviewers asked participants to discuss a separate question – “what should
organizations do to increase the representation of women in senior leadership positions?” As
the interview protocol was semi-structured, interviewers employed prompting questions to
further understand participants’ responses. The responses to these latter questions comprise
the data for this study.

Data analysis
We used an essentialist thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) to report on participants’
experiences, meanings, and perceived reality of the ways in which organizations are trying to
increase the number of women in senior leadership roles. The process of conducting thematic
analysis includes six key phases: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) coding, (3) searching for
themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes and (6) writing up the results
(Braun and Clarke, 2006; see also Alison et al., 2015; Johnson and Joshi, 2016). Following these
 View on demand-side
Women
Pseudonym Position Industry Age strategies leaders’ views
on demand-
Jennifer Head of Division Healthcare 58 Support
Carla Managing Partner Accounting 55 Support side strategy
Diane Vice Provost Academia 50 Support
Donna Senior Vice President Corporate Affairs 53 Support
Leanne CEO Finance 70 Support
Maureen President Oil and Gas 52 Support
Linda Inspector Police 64 Support
Melanie Executive Director Government 55 Support
Yvonne Vice President Energy 48 Support
Patricia Global HR Leader and IT 42 Support
Director
Marissa CEO R and D - Natural 70 Support
Resources
Kelly Vice President IT 45 Support
Elizabeth Research Chair Academia 55 Support
Megan CEO Cosmetics 55 Support
Penelope Senior Manager Banking 46 Support
Brenda General Manager Oil and Gas 52 Uncertain or opposed
Gillian Vice President Banking 45 Uncertain or opposed
Candice President Advertising 43 Uncertain or opposed
Nicole Director Communications Services 56 Uncertain or opposed
Annie Dean Academia 57 Uncertain or opposed
Monica Vice President Fashion 40 Uncertain or opposed Table 1.
Alana Managing Director Fashion 45 Uncertain or opposed Participant
Beth Director Not for profit 49 Uncertain or opposed demographic details

steps, we first read and re-read our transcripts to organize our data into thematic categories
about various organizational strategies used to address the current gender-leadership gap.
Our first-order coding of the participants’ language (Corbin and Strauss, 2008) generated
several strategies to address the gender gap. After consulting the relevant literature, we then
isolated examples of both supply and demand-side strategies, looking for patterns or codes as
to how these strategies were described and evaluated by our participants. Two of the authors
worked independently to generate these codes and themes inductively at first, after which we
met to compare and discuss our coding. Codes were aggregated into themes only after they
had appeared at least three times in the data. Whenever any disagreements arose, we would
discuss these differences and the rationale behind them until we reached consensus.
Consequently, we discovered that the most prevalent theme was that of demand-side
strategies, such as the use of targets and quotas. Numerous other suggestions for helping
women leaders succeed were offered (for example, themes around peer support, female
leaders’ home life, implicit biases), but very few were prevalent enough to justify a theme. An
alternative use of thematic analysis is “to provide a more detailed and nuanced account of one
particular theme, or group of themes, within the data” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 83). As
such, we chose to offer a more comprehensive account of the theme of demand-side strategies,
mainly due to its controversial and underexplored nature for which our participants could be
a key source of information. We thus returned to this subset of the data as a primary source of
data for this study to thematically analyze it for insights into the use of demand-side
strategies for ending the dearth of women in leadership. The results of our analysis,
particularly how we went from codes to sub-themes to overarching themes can be shown in
Figure 1, and demonstrative quotes to further support our themes are found in Table 2 and
described in more detail below.
JMP

Figure 1.
Female leaders’
perceptions of demand-
side strategies

Findings
Uncertain or opposed to demand-side strategies
Similar to existing research (e.g. Harrison et al., 2006; Tetlock and Mitchell, 2009), some
participants felt uncertain or were opposed to demand-side strategies as mechanisms for
 Aggregate
Women
Exemplary quotes Sub-themes theme leaders’ views
on demand-
I can imagine it would be hard as an organization because you’re Doesn’t seem Uncertain or
looking for the best talent but so are you going to do like that right opposed side strategy
affirmative action thing where you’re like we’re only going to
interview females because we want a more balanced workforce. . . It
would be kind of a debate for sure. (Alana)
Like I say, I’m a big proponent of the right person in the right role. I Doesn’t seem Uncertain or
think women can stand on their own two feet. I want to see them right opposed
succeed for that reason, as opposed to, “Oh, well. We have to be seen to
have a woman at our senior leadership table, so we better put one
there.” That just irks me. (Nicole)
It cannot be a metric or simply achieving it. So you need to have 30% Beliefs of Uncertain or
of your team, so I hit 40 but at the end of the day I did not choose them meritocracy opposed
just because they were females, I was looking for that leadership . . .do
not think it can be the only piece that you hang your decisions on.
(Brenda)
People are always like, “Oh my God. It’s so great that you’ve hired Beliefs of Uncertain or
mostly women at your agency.” I’m like, “It’s never been about that. meritocracy opposed
It’s always been about the ability and about the fit and about the
personality.” It just so happens that they’re mostly all female. I did not
plan it that way. (Candice)
I do feel (. . .) there are a lot of women that do think they deserve Perceived Backlash to
something because they are female. I do not agree with that. We threats demand-side
deserve something because we work hard, no matter what age you are strategies
or what gender you are or ethnicity. I get frustrated I think sometimes I
think people do put a bad connotation on what we’re trying to drive
(Yvonne)
I do not like to see females there just because “Oh we’ve got to have a Perceived Backlash to
woman.” What will often happen is that person will be marginalized threats demand-side
anyways. (Nicole) strategies
If a man and woman who are rated exactly the same, you can assume Frustration with Backlash to
that a portion of the man’s score is bias, which actually shifts them this perceived threats demand-side
way. That’s the way I mathematically make it in my head. Actually, strategies
the woman is higher even though they have the same score. The
woman is higher because she’s had to overcome the bias. (Elizabeth)
Women bring a different perspective and they’re going to value that. Frustration with Backlash to
They value that. That was a discussion we had recently, which is, perceived threats demand-side
“Okay, it’s not about the candidate who’s equal, let’s choose the strategies
woman. It’s actually that the woman is actually a better candidate
because she’s a woman” (Yvonne)
I think quotas without the right support is just stupid. . . I think the Beneficial to the Demand-side
other thing that, to me, is interesting is the idea that diversity is what organization strategies: a
you want in any organization because that actually gets you better viable option
solutions and better outcomes. (Jennifer)
We had a large fight around targets, people not wanting to set targets. Beneficial to the Demand-side
I’m a target-setter. I believe, yeah, they work. “Well, we do not know. organization strategies: a
What if we do not need them? What do you do if you do not meet a viable option
safety target?” We set safety targets. There’s nothing more
ambiguous than safety. We fail them all the time. On occasion we meet
them. What do you do? We adjust them. We look at the plan and (...)
Right, exactly. It’s all the same. You’d get that wanting to water down
diversity. (Yvonne)
Table 2.
(continued ) Demonstrative quotes
JMP Aggregate
Exemplary quotes Sub-themes theme

Sadly, we might need to do exactly what they concluded in Europe, Need to do Demand-side
about a decade ago, that the only solution would be quotas. That’s my something strategies: a
desire, but it is in progress. It might be the only solution that viable option
government changes the law and says, well, if you’re going to have X
percent women on your board and your leadership team, by that date,
you’ll have to list it. Real consequences (Carla)
If nothing’s going to change, we have to do something (Patricia) Need to do Demand-side
something strategies: a
viable option
I actually think they’re good. I think they’re good. I used to not be as Nothing has Role of career
supportive... But left to their own devices, people in power will hire changed stage
themselves, and replicate themselves, they just will, because of that
level of comfort, and the notion of fit. So, I like the idea of quotas.
(Diane)
It’s really interesting for me to hear people’s attitudes how people are Nothing has Role of career
vacillating between the need to have targets and do we need to changed stage
have. . .the conversation is getting old but still nothing has changed.
(Patricia)
You think that people promote on the basis of merit, and then you Naivete Role of career
realize, actually, no. I guess it’s also the realization of the systemic stage
nature of bias, that it’s in the way that we do things, the way that we
set up our organizations, it’s attitudes towards things. (Diane)
I’ve been at this since 2002. What we need is leadership commitment, Naivete Role of career
being owned at the top (. . .) I was very pleased when there was stage
proposed legislation in Ontario. When that happened, I was thinking
that is the board or managing teams are forced to disclose their policy,
their stats, their goals, they will put that information on the agenda
(. . .) but I’m quite disappointed by the lack of progress and of the fact
that most public companies will not even set targets. (Carla)
I would say that, contrary to, let’s say, a number of years ago where we Changing the Insufficient in
did not really talk about those targets very openly or we were not dialogue isolation
comfortable talking about them, we actively talk about them now.
(Donna)
And set metrics. And when that happened, I was thinking, well, that if Changing the Insufficient in
the boards or managing teams are forced to disclose their policy, they dialogue isolation
stats, their goals, they will put the information on the agenda. (Carla)
Get CEOs and everything on side with teaching this component, like Top Insufficient in
making it part of their orientation package for new employees. Having management isolation
it written into their policies, their protocols, their procedures and support
stepping up and meaning it. Standing behind these things and
speaking it because they have to lead by example. (Linda)
What you’re reading me there’s leadership commitment. It’s owned at Top Insufficient in
the top. So it’s leaders that talk about it, that put it on the agenda. management isolation
(Carla) support
Why are not there any females here? “Men should be asking that, as Male allies Insufficient in
well. That should not just be coming from women. It should not just isolation
be,” Oh, our statistics are off. “I think we will have achieved real
change when we have men around the table going,” This is really
weird. . .there’s no women here. (Nicole)
I would like to see things changed is really the women’s movement Male allies Insufficient in
champion really aligning themselves with men that are champions for isolation
women because quite often they are in positions now in industry,
Table 2. certain areas of industry. They are the ones holding the cards. (Beth)
change. These participants recognized that organizations should do something to close the Women
gender-leadership gap, but suspended the belief that demand-side strategies were a viable leaders’ views
solution.
Doesn’t seem right. For many participants who were uncertain or opposed, the
on demand-
implementation of demand-side strategies didn’t feel right to them. As stated by Candice “I side strategy
think targets are really tangly. . .I think you might need something in place, but what is that?
Unfortunately, I don’t really know the answer. I just think forcing women in or contriving
something is just not a natural process.” Nicole suggested that less aggressive practices could
be attempted instead of policy changes: “We just need to be talking about women and their
strengths, trying to push that a little more. Challenging boards and challenging companies
when they don’t have any females, but not telling them they have to.”
Beliefs in meritocracy. When participants were resistant towards demand-side strategies,
their reasons tended to be rooted in meritocratic beliefs, where only relevant inputs such as
ability should be considered, and factors such as gender should be disregarded (Son Hing
et al., 2011). For example, Gillian noted her hesitation by saying “I’m conflicted with this quota
stuff, because I am a believer of merit. The best person should get the job. And if the best
person is a man, then that’s great, let him get it.” Similarly, Annie reflected upon the
challenges associated with gender quotas by saying “Quotas are a hard one, right? I think
they should be encouraged and there should be more equitable representation, but I also feel
that people need to be there because of their skills. Not just because they are a woman.” Those
opposed to demand-side strategies were the minority of the participants (35% were either
uncertain or opposed), and their concerns reflect other scholarly findings where individuals
view these policies as “the antithesis of meritocratic principles” (Morgenroth and Ryan, 2018,
p. 8). These concerns were particularly pronounced when our participants acknowledged the
backlash to demand-side strategies from both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike.

Backlash to demand-side strategies

Perceived threats. A theme that emerged from our data concerned how women leaders
interpret the backlash associated with demand-side strategies, particularly in viewing these
strategies as threatening for both men and women. Some participants acknowledged that
men might find these prescriptive policies threatening and that this would create significant
backlash in organizations. As Candice described, “All of a sudden, if they are mandated to
hire a woman to fill some sort of a position, there is going to be bitterness, there is going to be
backlash, there are going to be hard times ahead.” Penelope noted a time when her
organization tried to implement changes for women in leadership, resulting in her male
colleagues feeling threatened: “You know where this is going. They were going to start
promoting more women and all of a sudden, everyone has their backs up. The men are not
going to get promoted. It was just a gong show.” These perspectives highlight that non-
beneficiaries are more likely to perceive demand-side strategies as a form of discrimination
(Unzueta et al., 2008) and the strategies could create greater intolerance for women who might
benefit from these programs (Maio and Esses, 1998).
Echoing the threats to non-beneficiaries, beneficiaries of demand-side strategies also feel
threatened by these policies (e.g. Leslie et al., 2014), and many female leaders naturally steered
the conversations to how demand-side strategies might negatively influence women’s
perceived competencies. As Patricia verbalized, “I don’t want to have any thought of ‘I got
ahead because I am a woman.” Nicole felt similarly, “We want women to have roles, but we
want them to have them because they’re recognized as deserving of them, not because of their
gender.” Melanie pointed out that people might perceive demand-side strategies as unfair:
“I don’t disagree with targets. I just think that in some cases then you’re not necessarily
viewed as having gotten a position based on merit.” Consistent with previous research
JMP (e.g. Hideg and Ferris, 2014; Leslie et al., 2014), participants expressed concern about the
potential for implementation of demand-side strategies to devalue women’s leadership.
Frustration with perceived threats. Although many participants acknowledged that
demand-side strategies can be threatening to both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, a
separate sub-theme emerged where others expressed frustration, feeling that these concerns
were overstated and rooted in beliefs of meritocracy: “You think that people promote on the
basis of merit, and then you realize, actually, no” (Diane). Maureen pushed beneficiaries of
demand-side strategies to focus on delivering quality performance and not to overanalyze
how they acquired their positions. She drew from her own experiences:
I have in the past been that token woman at the table, and I have been asked, “How do I feel about it?”
The tokenism only gets you to the table. You have to deliver once you’re there. If I get there because
it’s a target number because you need at least one woman there, I’ll take it. . .vs getting caught up in
this inner dialogue whether it’s fair or not.
She then pushed further saying, “Men aren’t brought up to worry about that stuff. Why are
we second-guessing the motives?” She, and others, recognized the internal worries that
women experience under demand-side strategies regarding merit of leadership positions (e.g.
Heilman et al., 1992, 1987). Although these fears are valid, many participants argued that
demand-side strategies recognize the benefits of diversity and therefore are beneficial: “You
should get the extra weight because you are a woman. . .It is better for me to have a diverse
team, and you should get extra points for that” (Yvonne). Participants believed that the
benefits of increased diversity, alongside the implicit advantages that men have in the
workplace (Hoyt, 2010), outweighed the perceived threats associated with them. As Maureen
argued:
I run into women who say that they want to win their roles fair and square on their own capabilities,
and that they don’t need targets. I just say: “Why would you care? Take the opportunity whatever
which way you get it. Because I promise you that young guy there with the silver spoon in his mouth,
he does not care that he is getting opportunities because he was brought up with a silver spoon.” We
should stop worrying about where the opportunities are coming from, and just take them where
they are.
Research suggests that the threats associated with demand-side strategies may be
unsubstantiated for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike given that these
processes are more likely to encourage meritocracy (Besley et al., 2017; Crosby et al., 2003).
For non-beneficiaries, the implementation of demand-side strategies can increase the
competence and quality of male leaders (Besley et al., 2017), protect male’s self-esteem under
leadership failure (Unzueta et al., 2008), and, if created with non-beneficiary participation, can
garner support (Hideg et al., 2011; Lowery et al., 2006). For beneficiaries, demand-side
strategies can increase women’s expectations of succeeding (Geissel and Hust, 2005), which
may strengthen their motivation and ambition to lead. In line with this research, those
participants who were frustrated with the perceived threats associated with demand-side
strategies for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (and how these acted as plausible deterrents
to the implementation of demand-side strategies) were also more likely to see demand-side
strategies as a promising option to close the gender-leadership gap, the theme which we
outline next.

Demand-side strategies – a viable option

Beneficial to the organization. In our data, some participants were strongly supportive of
demand-side strategies, particularly gender targets and quotas, because they felt they would
be favorable for organizations. As Yvonne stated: “I’m a target setter. They work. We have
the evidence.” Others recognized the positive outcomes for both leadership and organizations:
“Targets, I think to have a general goal, it’s good. . .I think there should be a goal of having at Women
least half of your leaders that are women” (Melanie), and the organization as a whole: “I like leaders’ views
the idea of quotas, because it makes you think differently about the people around the table,
and diversity around the table produces a different kind of thinking, so I think that is
on demand-
important in terms of gender” (Diane). side strategy
Need to do something. In our findings, the majority of our participants supported different
types of demand-side strategies (65% of our respondents). However, rather than being
strongly supportive of demand-side strategies, many simply saw no other alternative.
Maureen, in recognizing how slow progress had been in closing the gender-leadership gap,
specified, “Quite honest with you, I don’t care what the solution is going to be, I just want
someone to do something.” Penelope echoed this frustration:
I think that whatever it takes to get there, quite frankly, because we are not getting there without
it. . .I think hard targets are probably the way it needs to go. . .I was never a fan of them, early on. Still
not really a fan of them because I think that’s when everyone gets their back up, but it’s incentivizing
the right behavior. If we want more women in these roles, it needs to be incentivized.
Many participants acknowledged their internal quandaries regarding certain demand-side
strategies. As Marissa acknowledged: “I have my reservations on quotas, but I don’t see any
other way.” Patricia similarly expressed:
I go back and forth on quotas in terms of should you have to have a quota in terms of how many
females you have. Partly, no, that’s ridiculous. Again, it should be the best person for the job.
Absolutely we need to have more females, but if they’re not the right person, we don’t want to bring
them in. Then again, I turn my head and look in the other direction and we keep hiring cookie cutters
and as long as we keep hiring cookie cutters, the exact replica of what we have, then we’re not going
to change it. If nothing’s going to change, we have to do something.
Participants who were supportive of demand-side strategies to close the gender-leadership
gap largely saw them as a “last resort,” which is defined as a “final course of action used when
all else has failed” (Lexico Oxford Dictionary, 2019, para. 1). Many participants noted that
having more women in leadership was beneficial to organizations, but the practices
organizations were willing to implement were making little progress. Research largely
supports this perspective, such that greater gender diversity results in a multitude of positive
outcomes (e.g. Galinsky et al., 2015), but there is little evidence that current supply-side
strategies are effective in achieving positive organizational outcomes (e.g. O’Neil et al., 2011;
Ragins et al., 2000; Vinnicombe and Singh, 2003). Consistent with scholarly research (e.g. Sojo
et al., 2016), many participants viewed demand-side strategies as a last resort to effectively
achieve quantifiable progress in closing the gender-leadership gap.

Role of career stage

As previous research has demonstrated that demand-side strategies are often viewed
negatively (e.g. Harrison et al., 2006), the finding that so many of our participants were willing
to support them was surprising. This disconnect led us to dig further into the data to better
understand the contingencies that make this type of support more or less likely. In particular,
we found that participants in the latter stages of their careers showed stronger support for
demand-side strategies, such that 53% of those who were in support of demand-side
strategies acknowledged that their beliefs regarding these policies had changed due to their
own workplace experiences. Further supporting this finding is that leaders who had come to
see demand-side strategies as a last resort were on average almost 7 years older than those
who were opposed.
Nothing has changed. Many participants came to support these strategies as they felt that
the dearth of women in leadership has been a problem ever since they began their careers, and
JMP nothing was truly changing. Megan noted, “I’ve always been against the idea that we needed
laws for this, but I have to say that I’ve come around to the fact that we’re going to have to.”
She acknowledged that she came to this realization through witnessing the lack of progress:
“I don’t see any other way. . .We’ve been talking about this since I came out of MBA school,
which was back in ’84, and we’ve gotten nowhere.”
Naivete. A separate sub-theme found that participants came to support demand-side
strategies by acknowledging that at the inception of their careers, they were optimistic, and
perhaps naı€ve, believing in fair systems. As Maureen stated:
I didn’t understand the rules of the game. In fact, I didn’t know there was a game. I’d talk to my female
colleagues who were around the same vintage as me, who are no longer embedded like we were, and
we talk about that. We didn’t have enough protection around ourselves, or enough champions
around us, because we were independent. Thinking that good work, honesty, and loyalty was the
game when in fact there was a whole other game in these organizations.
Penelope highlighted a similar perspective suggesting, “I remember early on being very
naı€ve. I was very naı€ve. . .I came from a place, well, you know if I’m qualified, I’m going to get
hired. Now, thinking back on it, no.” Participants at the latter stages of their careers
acknowledged that their trust in a fair system had not materialized and they feared that if
organizations did not change, the gender-leadership gap would remain. Marissa, who had just
retired from her role as CEO, corroborated this view:
I was never very good at supporting or simply putting a person into a position because she was a
woman. But as I matured, I saw the need to have that representation, and I’ve changed my tune,
changed my tune 100%. I recognize that I do not see another way forward.
Although the stage of career of the participants is consistent with research that suggests
CEOs are more likely to implement diversity initiatives towards the end of their career (Ng
and Sears, 2012), our results indicate that participants were more supportive of these
practices due to their original expectations of the workplace being unmet and frustration with
stalled progress. As many participants in the latter stages of their career felt disappointed
that progress for gender equality had not been made, they perceived demand-side strategies
as a valuable option to close the gender-leadership gap. This finding is particularly
interesting, given that these women were able to achieve their own leadership roles without
the assistance of such strategies. However, the women felt that the systems in which they had
participated were unfair and those practices contributed to the continued gender-leadership
gap. This finding suggests that not all senior female leaders adopt a “Queen-Bee” perspective,
which implies that female leaders often legitimize practices that support gender inequality in
organizations (Derks et al., 2016). Many female leaders in our sample actively supported
strategies that enhance gender balance in leadership.

Demand-side strategies – insufficient in isolation

Accompanying participants’ discussions regarding demand-side strategies were themes
concerning how these strategies could not be implemented in isolation. Three main sub-
themes arose regarding what participants saw as complements to demand-side strategies,
specifically having organizations that change the dialogue around women in leadership, the
support of top management, and male allies.
Change the dialogue. Participants said that for demand-side strategies to work, the
dialogue around gender and leadership was important and needed to change. For example,
employees need to feel safe to have conversations about gender and diversity: “I think
organizations need to focus a lot more on having the dialogue. . .making it safe. That sounds
trite, but I mean, engaging in that dialogue, creating space for that dialogue, legitimizing the
fact that it is an important dialogue to have” (Donna). Others felt that conversations about
gender and leadership would be better brought to the forefront if people knew the gender Women
breakdown of their companies: leaders’ views
We need to pay attention to who is holding what positions, how many [women] are in junior on demand-
positions, go to the next level, then to the senior positions. Is there gender equity in those positions, side strategy
which are actually the powerful positions? (Diane).
She later goes on to say, “So we can talk about equity, but there are levels. It’s a conversation
that we continue to need to have.” Those conversations about how organizations are doing
need to be steered and supported by decision makers about future directions: “Rather than
focus on the problem about what makes [the gender-leadership gap] so hard, I think it’s
focusing on how people are doing, and where do we want to go?” (Patricia).
Top management support. Many felt that an important theme related to effective
implementation of demand-side strategies was the assurance that senior leadership was on
board: “The only way to do this is from the top down. I think executives need to support it, and
they certainly need to make sure their managers believe that this is going to be the way it is”
(Penelope). In order to create an organizational culture that would support demand-side
strategies, top leadership was perceived as critical to any organization’s success: “I really do
believe it’s about leadership. I know this from an organizational culture perspective. Without
the CEO on board, it won’t happen” (Yvonne).
The overall need for the organization to be supportive of demand-side strategies was
perceived as multi-faceted. This is consistent with previous findings that just acknowledging
gender bias and reporting results is insufficient to create change (Duguid and Thomas-Hunt,
2015; Sojo et al., 2016), and that there is a need for top management support when
implementing diversity initiatives (e.g. Ng, 2008; Rynes and Rosen, 1995). As organizations use
specific structures, leadership and high-performance work practices as a means to create and
reinforce organizational cultures (Schein, 2017), efforts to promote gender diversity need to
align with corresponding policies and strategies. Attempts to change gender diversity via
demand-side strategies that are not strategically aligned with other aspects of the organization
will likely generate contradictory messaging and incongruent priorities (Hartnell et al., 2019).
Male Allies. Alongside the need for organizations to encourage conversations about
gender and leadership and to have top management support, many participants advocated
for male colleagues to become supportive of demand-side strategies. Penelope explains: “I
think that you need to get buy-in from men. A lot of the times, they are the ones doing the
hiring. When I think back over my career, the promotions have been from men, they haven’t
been from women.” Other participants felt that in order for all employees to support such
strategies, male colleagues should be advocating for them: “The best thing that could happen
is that men could start preaching the benefits of having more women in positions of decision
making and authority because when men hear women talk about it they shut down. They
close their eyes” (Linda). The role that male allies play in the fight for gender inclusive
leadership is an important and burgeoning area of scholarship (Burke and Major, 2014). Male
allies are seen as legitimate and even rewarded for championing diversity and supporting
women at work (e.g. Czopp and Monteith, 2003; Hekman et al., 2017). Though men may be well
positioned to enact change for gender inclusive leadership (deVries, 2015), doing so
effectively without jeopardizing their own positions is challenging (Cheng et al., 2019; Kelan,
2019). Yet, for many female leaders in our study, they perceived male allies as an important
part of demand-side strategies.

Discussion
This study approached the complex problem of how to close the gender-leadership gap
through a collaborative approach with successful female leaders. The findings of our study
JMP emphasize the tensions between supply- and demand-side strategies (Sojo et al., 2016) and
suggest that, although controversial, demand-side strategies are perceived by many female
leaders as a viable option to close the gender-leadership gap. Some participants felt
uncertainty and opposition for these strategies, particularly recognizing the perceived threats
to both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike. Those perceived threats were a source of
frustration for others who perceived demand-side strategies as a plausible option.
By way of adding more nuance to the reasons behind female leaders’ support of demand-
side strategies, we found that participants at the latter stages of their career were most likely to
advocate for such strategies, even though they themselves had advanced to leadership roles
without the use of demand-side strategies. However, based on the lack of change they have
witnessed in their own careers and their own earlier naivete, they supported these strategies as
a means to close the gap. Finally, participants acknowledged that implementation of demand-
side strategies were insufficient in isolation. Instead, they argued that organizations needed to
change the dialogue regarding gender and leadership, that support was needed from top
management, and that male allies were important to advancing these strategies.
Our research highlights that even when these female leaders support demand-side
strategies, they do so only after considerable introspection. Specifically, participants had to
believe in the merits of these strategies and feel sufficiently frustrated at the persistent
gender-leadership gap to endorse demand-side strategies. Additionally, for female leaders at
the latter stages of their careers, their support for such policies was sometimes born out of
sheer frustration that they were continuously engaged in these conversations, and that
organizations were no closer to narrowing the gender-leadership gap than when these women
started their careers. Though research has acknowledged factors that identify when people
are more or less likely to support demand-side strategies (e.g. ascriptions of agency, M€olders
et al., 2018; beliefs in meritocracy, Islam and Zilenovsky, 2011; sexist attitudes, Cassese et al.,
2015), less research has looked at stage of career as a predictor of support of these initiatives.
Finally, our approach to this research through an engaged epistemology enabled a
difficult conversation to emerge. It is widely acknowledged that demand-side strategies are
controversial (Morgenroth and Ryan, 2018), and the nature of our confidential interviews
allowed successful female leaders to articulate their feelings about a divisive topic. Many of
our participants would prefer that other strategies had worked and that this conversation
was no longer necessary, but through their lived experiences, they remain frustrated at the
gender-leadership gap. Therefore, while acknowledging the challenges associated with
implementing demand-side strategies for women in leadership, successful female leaders
urge both scholars and organizations to find ways to achieve progress.

Future research and limitations

This study suggests directions for future research, many of which are rooted in its limitations.
In our discussions with participants, all demand-side strategies were largely lumped together
using a single lens. We did not find a clear theme in our findings regarding the separations of
these initiatives. We do not presume that our participants view them all equally, but rather
see this as a result of how participants either brought up these initiatives on their own accord
(particularly in our earlier interviews) or due to our prompting questions in later interviews, in
which we lumped the strategies together in the same question. However, as noted both in
research and practice, there are critical differences between reporting requirements, targets,
and legislated quotas (Pande and Ford, 2012; Sojo et al., 2016). Future research should explore
how female leaders perceive these different demand-side strategies, and investigate whether
their perspectives on these policies vary based on strength and severity of the tactics.
Our sample was limited in ways that provide important opportunities for future research.
First, we limited our sample to women in North America, both in Canada and the United
States. This was purposefully done as a way to restrict our sample to a similar context; Women
however, we recognize that our study does not necessarily generalize to other successful leaders’ views
female leaders outside of North America. This is both a critical omission and opportunity. We
encourage scholars to examine how demand-side strategies are perceived by female leaders
on demand-
in countries that have implemented legislative gender quotas for board governance amongst side strategy
publicly traded companies, such as Finland, France, or Norway (Terjesen et al., 2015), or
within political arenas, such as Argentina, Bolivia, or Rwanda (Chalaby, 2017). Second, our
discussions with participants did not explore issues of intersectionality; for example, how to
increase the representation of women of color into leadership roles. Analysis was conducted
within the limits of our data, which involved co-creating knowledge with participants who
were drawn from a primarily Caucasian sample (approximately 90%). A critical step in
creating more inclusive leadership is to ensure that the focus is not simply on increasing the
representation of women, but increasing diversity overall. Scholars and practitioners can and
should build off important work regarding intersectionality by leading academics in this area
to create inclusive leadership structures (e.g. Breslin et al., 2017; Rosette et al., 2016).
Practical implications
The results of our study provide an important context under which female leaders are more
likely to support demand-side strategies. Not all female leaders saw demand-side strategies
as a feasible option, but those who did saw it as a viable one that could increase the number of
women in leadership roles. This was particularly true for women at the latter stages of their
careers that felt frustrated that gender inequality persisted in leadership. This suggests that
senior female leaders may not necessarily subscribe to the Queen Bee phenomenon (Derks
et al., 2011), but ultimately become strong advocates for organizational change to help women
succeed.
Our participants also advocated for specific strategies that would encourage effective
implementation and increase the likelihood that these policies would be supported. Previous
research has demonstrated numerous factors that support diversity climate such as human
resource policies as well as the ethnic and gender composition of the organization (e.g. Kossek
et al., 2003; Mor Barak et al., 1998). To implement demand-side strategies, our participants
advocated for changing the dialogue around gender and leadership at work, the provision of
top management support, and gaining the support of male allies in order to alleviate some of
the pushback organizations might expect.
Our results also suggest important implications for those who champion the advancement
of women in leadership. Demand-side strategies are indeed controversial, and the
participants acknowledged the challenges associated with such tactics. Perhaps this is a
point of comfort for other advocates who champion these strategies to close the gender-
leadership gap but feel high levels of uncertainty around them. We hope that the results of our
study provide a talking point both for advocates and naysayers of demand-side strategies.
Candid conversations that acknowledge people’s concerns about demand-side strategies
while speaking equally about their merits may help acquire buy-in for beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries (Hideg et al., 2011).
Organizations that choose to implement demand-side strategies need to be considerate of
how they will measure their effectiveness. For example, a recent paper found that although
Norwegian gender quotas positively increased the representation of women on corporate
boards, there was a negative relationship with the firms’ performance in the year following that
quota (Yang et al., 2019). Organizations should be careful and strategic about their overall goals
of increasing gender representation in leadership. Emphasizing only short-term financial
outcomes to justify the business case as the primary reason for increasing diversity may ignore
the other ways in which diversity adds value to organizations (Hoobler et al., 2018).
JMP Conclusion
Today’s organizations have made numerous attempts to close the gender-leadership gap,
yet have failed to do so. Our research sheds light on the role of demand-side strategies for
organizations to increase the representation of women in leadership positions. Merging
insights from the current literature with counsel from senior female leaders, our research
suggests that if organizations wish to narrow the gender-leadership gap, demand-side
strategies should be considered a viable option. Despite the hesitation and backlash that
these strategies trigger, many female leaders see these strategies as an important option for
organizations to seriously consider changing the current dearth of women in top leadership.
Our hope is that these findings will generate further discussion around this complex
topic to ultimately support organizations in creating more gender inclusive leadership
structures.

References
Alison, L., Power, N., van den Heuvel, C. and Waring, S. (2015), “A taxonomy of endogenous and
exogenous uncertainty in high-risk, high-impact contexts”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 1309-1318, doi: 10.1037/a0038591.
Athanasopoulou, A., Moss-Cowan, A., Smets, M. and Morris, T. (2018), “Claiming the corner office:
female CEO careers and implications for leadership development”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 617-639, doi: 10.1002/hrm.21887.
Besley, T., Folke, O., Persson, T. and Rickne, J. (2017), “Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre
man: theory and evidence from Sweden”, American Economic Review, Vol. 107 No. 8,
pp. 2204-2242, doi: 10.1257/aer.20160080.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brescoll, V.L. (2016), “Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to
biased evaluations of female leaders”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 415-428,
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.005.
Breslin, R.A., Pandey, S. and Riccucci, N.M. (2017), “Intersectionality in public leadership research: a
review and future research agenda”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 160-182, doi: 10.1177/0734371X17697118.
Burke, R.J. and Major, D.A. (2014), “Advancing women’s careers: why men matter”, in Burke, R.J. and
Major, D.A. (Eds), Gender in Organizations: Are Men Allies or Adversaries to Women’s Career
Advancement?, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, pp. 11-53.
Cassese, E., Barnes, T.D. and Branton, R.P. (2015), “Racializing gender: public opinion at the
intersection”, Politics and Gender, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-26, doi: 10.1017/S1743923X14000567.
Catalyst (2020), “Quick take: women in the workforce- global”, January 30, available at: https://www.
catalyst.org/knowledge/women-workforce-global (accessed 10 June 2020).
Chalaby, O. (2017), “Ranked and mapped: which countries have the most women in parliament”,
Apolitical, September 19, available at: https://apolitical.co/solution_article/which-countries-have-
most-women-in-parliament/.
Chang, E.H., Milkman, K.L., Chugh, D. and Akinola, M. (2019), “Diversity thresholds: how social
norms, visibility, and scrutiny relate to group composition”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 144-171, doi: 10.5465/amj.2017.0440.
Cheng, S.K., Ng, L.C., Traylor, A.M. and King, E.B. (2019), “Helping or hurting?: understanding
women’s perceptions of male allies”, Personnel Assessment and Decisions, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 44-54,
doi: 10.25035/pad.2019.02.006.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Crosby, F.J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S. and Downing, R.A. (2003), “Affirmative action: psychological data Women
and the policy debates”, American Psychologist, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 93-115, doi: 10.1037/0003-
066X.58.2.93. leaders’ views
Cross, C. and Armstrong, C. (2008), “Understanding the role of networks in collective learning
on demand-
processes: the experience of women”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 4, side strategy
pp. 600-613, doi: 10.1177/1523422308320495.
Czopp, A.M. and Monteith, M.J. (2003), “Confronting prejudice (literally): reactions to confrontations of
racial and gender bias”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 532-544,
doi: 10.1177/0146167202250923.
Debebe, G., Anderson, D., Bilimoria, D. and Vinnicombe, S.M. (2016), “Women’s leadership
development programs: lessons learned and new frontiers”, Journal of Management
Education, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 231-252, doi: 10.1177/1052562916639079.
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., Ellemers, N. and deGroot, K. (2011), “Gender-bias primes elicit queen-bee
responses among senior policewoman”, Psychological Science, Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 1243-1249,
doi: 10.1177/0956797611417258.
Derks, B., Van Laar, C. and Ellemers, N. (2016), “The queen bee phenomenon: why women leaders
distance themselves from junior women”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 456-469,
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007.
deVries, J.A. (2015), “Champions of gender equality: female and male executives as leaders of gender
change”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 21-36,
doi: 10.1108/EDI-05-2013-0031.
Diehl, A. and Dzubinski, L. (2016), “Making the invisible visible: a cross-sector analysis of gender-
based leadership barriers”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 181-206,
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21248.
Duguid, M.M. and Thomas-Hunt, M.C. (2015), “Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of
stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 343-359, doi: 10.1037/a0037908.
Ely, R.J., Ibarra, H. and Kolb, D.M. (2011), “Taking gender into account: theory and design for women’s
leadership development programs”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 474-493, doi: 10.5465/amle.2010.0046.
Galinsky, A.D., Todd, A.R., Homan, A.C., Phillips, K.W., Apfelbaum, E.P., Sasaki, S.J., Richeson, J.A.,
Olayon, J.B. and Maddux, W.W. (2015), “Maximizing the gains and minimizing the pains of
diversity: a policy perspective”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 742-748,
doi: 10.1177/1745691615598513.
Geissel, B. and Hust, E. (2005), “Democratic mobilisation through quotas: experiences in India and
Germany”, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 222-244, doi: 10.1080/
14662040500151101.
Gillespie, J.Z. and Ryan, A.M. (2012), “Gender-based preferential selection: influences of perceptions of
procedurally unfair advantage on performance and self- evaluations”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 150-179, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01016.x.
Glass, C. and Cook, A. (2016), “Leading at the top: understanding women’s challenges above the glass
ceiling”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-63, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.003.
Harrison, D.A., Kravitz, D.A., Mayer, D.M., Leslie, L.M. and Lev-Arey, D. (2006), “Understanding
attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: summary and meta-analysis of 35
yrs of research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1013-1036, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.91.5.1013.
Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y., Kinicki, A.J., Choi, D. and Karam, E.P. (2019), “A meta-analytic test of
organizational culture’s association with elements of an organization’s system and its relative
predictive validity on organizational outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 104 No. 6,
pp. 832-850, doi: 10.1037/apl0000380.
JMP Heckathorn, D.D. (1997), “Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden
populations”, Social Problems, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 174-199, doi: 10.2307/3096941.
Heilman, M.E. and Okimoto, T.G. (2007), “Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?:
the implied communality deficit”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 81-92,
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81.
Heilman, M.E., Simon, M.C. and Repper, D.P. (1987), “Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed?
Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 62-68, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.62.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J. and Lucas, J.A. (1992), “Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and
affirmative action efforts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 536-544, doi: 10.1037/
0021-9010.77.4.536.
Hekman, D.R., Johnson, S.K., Foo, M. and Yang, W. (2017), “Does diversity-valuing behavior result in
diminished performance ratings for non-white and female leaders?”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 771-797, doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0538.
Hideg, I. and Ferris, D.L. (2014), “Support for employment equity policies: a self-enhancement
approach”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 49-64,
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.11.002.
Hideg, I., Michela, J.L. and Ferris, D.L. (2011), “Overcoming negative reactions of nonbeneficiaries to
employment equity: the effect of participation in policy formulation”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 363-376, doi: 10.1037/a0020969.
Hoobler, J.M., Masterson, C.R., Nkomo, S.M. and Michel, E.J. (2018), “The business case for women
leaders: meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44
No. 6, pp. 2473-2499, doi: 10.1177/0149206316628643.
Hoyt, C. (2010), “Women, men, and leadership: exploring the gender gap at the top”, Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 484-498, doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00274.x.
Ibarra, H. (1993), “Personal networks of women and minorities in management: a conceptual framework”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 56-87, doi: 10.5465/amr.1993.3997507.
Islam, G. and Zilenovsky, S.E. (2011), “Affirmative action and leadership attitudes in Brazilian women
managers: the moderating influence of justice perceptions”, Journal of Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 139-143, doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000039.
Johnson, T.D. and Joshi, A. (2016), “Dark clouds or silver linings? A stigma threat perspective on the
implications of an autism diagnosis for workplace well-being”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 430-449, doi: 10.1037/apl0000058.
Joshi, A., Son, J. and Roh, H. (2015), “When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex
differences in performance and rewards”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 5,
pp. 1516-1545, doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0721.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. and Kelly, E. (2006), “Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of
corporate affirmative action and diversity policies”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 589-617, doi: 10.1177/000312240607100404.
Kassotakis, M.E. (2017), “Women-only leadership programs: a deeper look”, in Madsen, S.R. (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Gender and Leadership, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA,
pp. 395-408.
Kelan, E.K. (2019), “The inclusive leader, the smart strategist and the forced altruist: subject positions
for men as gender equality partners”, European Management Review, Advance online
publication, doi: 10.1111/emre.12372.
Kossek, E.E., Markel, K.S. and McHugh, P.P. (2003), “Increasing diversity as an HRM change
strategy”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 328-352, doi: 10.
1108/09534810310475550.
Leslie, L.M., Mayer, D.M. and Kravitz, D.A. (2014), “The stigma of affirmative action: a stereotyping- Women
based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 964-989, doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0940. leaders’ views
Lexico Oxford Dictionary (2019), “Last resort”, available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/last_
on demand-
resort (accessed 5 December 2019). side strategy
Locke, E. and Latham, G.P. (2002), “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation”, American Psychologist, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 705-717, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705.
Lowery, B., Unzueta, M., Knowles, E. and Goff, P. (2006), “Concern for the in-group and opposition to
affirmative action”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 961-974,
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.961.
Lyness, K.S. and Grotto, A.R. (2018), “Women and leadership in the United States: are we closing the
gender gap?”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 227-265, doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104739.
Maio, G. and Esses, V. (1998), “The social consequences of affirmative action: deleterious effects on
perceptions of groups”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 65-74,
doi: 10.1177/0146167298241005.
M€olders, S., Brosi, P., Bekk, M., Sp€orrle, M. and Welpe, I. (2018), “Support for quotas for women in
leadership: the influence of gender stereotypes”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 57 No. 4,
pp. 869-882, doi: 10.1002/hrm.21882.
Mor Barak, M.E., Cherin, D.A. and Berkman, S. (1998), “Organizational and personal dimensions in
diversity climate: ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions”, The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 82-104, doi: 10.1177/0021886398341006.
Morgenroth, T. and Ryan, M.K. (2018), “Quotas and affirmative action: understanding group-based
outcomes and attitudes”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 12 No. 3, e12374,
doi: 10.1111/spc3.12374.
Ng, E.S.W. (2008), “Why organizations choose to manage diversity? Towards a leadership-
based theoretical framework”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 58-78, doi: 10.1177/1534484307311592.
Ng, E.S. and Sears, G.J. (2012), “CEO leadership styles and the implementation of organizational
diversity practices: moderating effects of social values and age”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 41-52, doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0933-7.
Noon, M. (2012), “Simply the best? The case for using ‘threshold selection’ in hiring decisions”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 76-88, doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00168.x.
O’Neil, D.A., Hopkins, M.M. and Sullivan, S.E. (2011), “Do women’s networks help advance women’s
careers? Differences in perceptions of female workers and top leadership”, Career Development
International, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 733-754, doi: 10.1108/13620431111187317.
Pande, R. and Ford, D. (2012), Gender Quotas and Female Leadership, World Bank, available at:
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9120.
Pini, B., Brown, K. and Ryan, C. (2004), “Women-only networks as a strategy for change? A case study
from local government”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 286-292, doi: 10.1108/
09649420410555051.
Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L. and Miller, J.S. (2000), “Marginal mentoring: the effects of type of mentor,
quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1177-1194, doi: 10.5465/1556344.
Rosette, A.S., Koval, C.Z., Ma, A. and Livingston, R. (2016), “Race matters for women leaders:
intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 429-445, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.008.
Rudman, L.A., Moss-Racusin, C.A., Phelan, J.E. and Nauts, S. (2012), “Status incongruity and backlash
effects: defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders”, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 165-179, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008.
JMP Rynes, S. and Rosen, B. (1995), “A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived success
of diversity training”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 247-270, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.
1995.tb01756.x.
Schein, E.H. (2017), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 5th ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Shteynberg, G., Leslie, L.M., Knight, A.P. and Mayer, D.M. (2011), “But affirmative action hurts us!
Race-related beliefs shape perceptions of white disadvantage and policy unfairness”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1016/
j.obhdp.2010.11.011.
Sojo, V.E., Wood, R.E., Wood, S.A. and Wheeler, M.A. (2016), “Reporting requirements, targets,
and quotas for women in leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 519-536,
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.003.
Son Hing, L.S., Bobocel, D.R., Zanna, M.P., Garcia, D.M., Gee, S.S. and Orazietti, K. (2011), “The
merit of meritocracy”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 3,
pp. 433-450, doi: 10.1037/a0024618.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.M. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage Publications.
Suri, H. (2011), “Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis”, Qualitative Research Journal,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 63-75, doi: 10.3316/QRJ1102063.
Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R.V. and Lorenz, R. (2015), “Legislating a woman’s seat on the board:
institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 233-251, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2083-1.
Tetlock, P.E. and Mitchell, G.E. (2009), “Implicit bias and accountability systems: what must
organizations do to prevent discrimination?”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 3-38, doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.002.
Unzueta, M.M., Lowery, B.S. and Knowles, E.D. (2008), “How believing in affirmative action quotas
protects White men’s self-esteem”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.001.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2007), Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Johnson, P.E. (2006), “Knowledge for theory and practice”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 802-821, doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.22527385.
Vinnicombe, S. and Singh, V. (2003), “Women-only management training: an essential part of women’s
leadership development”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 294-306, doi: 10.1080/
714023846.
Yang, P., Riepe, J., Moser, K., Pull, K. and Terjesen, S. (2019), “Women directors, firm performance, and
firm risk: a causal perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 5, p. 101297, doi: 10.1016/
j.leaqua.2019.05.004.

Corresponding author
Alyson Byrne can be contacted at: alyson.byrne@mun.ca

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com