Abstract
Orientation: Despite improvements in women’s representation in executive leadership, tenure sustainability remains uneven, particularly within transformation-driven contexts such as South Africa’s private sector.
Research purpose: This study explored how structural, cultural and developmental dynamics shape the sustainability of women executives’ leadership tenure following appointment.
Motivation for the study: Industrial and organisational psychology (IOP) scholarship has predominantly focused on barriers to leadership access rather than executive tenure durability. In South Africa, legislated transformation has improved representation; however, sustained executive presence has not increased proportionately, suggesting a sustainability gap requiring theoretical and practical examination.
Research approach/design and method: An interpretivist qualitative design using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was adopted. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight senior women executives who voluntarily exited C-suite or equivalent roles across South African private-sector industries.
Main findings: Executive tenure sustainability emerged as a function of relational alignment across three interdependent domains: structural legitimacy, cultural belonging and developmental continuity. Misalignment produced cumulative relational strain, increasing vulnerability to voluntary exit despite demonstrated competence and formal authority.
Practical/managerial implications: The study introduces the executive sustainability diagnostic model, enabling organisations to assess governance integration, leadership climate architecture and talent mobility systems to proactively manage executive tenure risk.
Contribution/value-add: The study advances relational sustainability as a mid-range IOP framework, shifting leadership scholarship from pipeline-access metaphors to systemic analysis of executive tenure durability.
Keywords: executive leadership; executive tenure; women in leadership; relational sustainability; psychological safety; executive retention; gendered organisations; South Africa.
Introduction
Over the past two decades, South Africa has embedded transformation imperatives within corporate governance through legislative frameworks such as the Employment Equity Act and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) policies. These instruments aim to redress historical exclusion by increasing representation of women and previously disadvantaged groups in organisational leadership (Commission for Employment Equity [CEE], 2025). Despite these mandates, women remain under-represented at senior executive levels. Employment equity data indicate that women held approximately 26.2% of top management roles in the private-sector in 2024 (Commission for Employment Equity [CEE], 2025). Similarly, analysis of Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) top 40 firms shows that women held roughly 27.4% of executive positions in 2025, reflecting persistent gaps between board inclusion and executive authority (Just Share, 2025). These patterns, alongside global evidence of shorter executive tenures and heightened scrutiny for women leaders (Glass & Cook, 2018), suggest that representational gains do not automatically translate into tenure durability.
Industrial and organisational psychology (IOP) has traditionally focused on barriers to leadership access, including pipeline constraints, evaluation bias and glass cliff appointments (Morgenroth et al., 2020; Ryan & Haslam, 2005). While instrumental in exposing advancement inequities, this scholarship has devoted comparatively little attention to what occurs after women attain executive roles. Tenure outcomes are often framed as consequences of individual resilience or leadership style, potentially obscuring systemic mechanisms operating longitudinally within organisational systems (Eagly & Heilman, 2016).
Turnover research provides robust models of withdrawal cognition (Bolt et al., 2022), yet executive departure differs from employee turnover due to its embeddedness within governance architectures, succession systems and reputational capital dynamics. Exit at this level may therefore reflect strategic recalibration rather than affective disengagement. Leadership theory further illuminates structural influences: gendered organisation theory highlights embedded masculine norms (Acker, 1990); role congruity theory explains stereotype-based evaluation bias (Eagly & Karau, 2002); and contemporary legitimacy research demonstrates that leadership authority is socially negotiated (Tremmel & Wahl, 2023). Inclusion and psychological safety scholarship links belonging to retention outcomes (Dong et al., 2024; Shore et al., 2018), while sponsorship research emphasises the role of advocacy and strategically central assignments in career durability (Barkhuizen et al., 2022; Dwivedi et al., 2023).
However, these perspectives remain fragmented. The interaction between leadership attainment and tenure sustainability remains under-theorised, particularly within South Africa’s transformation-driven institutional context. Representational progress may coexist with conditional legitimacy, informal marginalisation or developmental stagnation (Bosch & Booysen, 2021).
This study shifts the analytical focus from access to endurance. It examines how structural legitimacy, cultural belonging, and developmental continuity interact over time to shape executive sustainability within South Africa’s layered governance environment (CEE, 2025; Just Share, 2025). By integrating these domains, the study introduces relational sustainability as a mid-range theoretical construct within IOP, conceptualising tenure durability as a systemic equilibrium rather than as individual endurance.
Theoretical and empirical foundations
Executive tenure sustainability requires integration of multiple theoretical traditions within IOP. While leadership research has largely focused on access barriers and turnover scholarship has examined withdrawal processes (Bolt et al., 2022), comparatively little attention has been given to the systemic conditions that shape post-appointment durability. This study addresses that gap by synthesising established theories to examine sustained executive presence following appointment.
Gendered organisation theory conceptualises organisations as structured around historically embedded masculine norms that shape authority and evaluation systems (Acker, 1990; Booysen & Nkomo, 2010). Role congruity theory explains stereotype-based legitimacy challenges faced by women leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Tremmel & Wahl, 2023). Inclusion climate and psychological safety research links belonging and interpersonal risk tolerance to retention outcomes (Dong et al., 2024; Shore et al., 2018), while sponsorship and career capital scholarship highlights the role of advocacy and strategically central assignments in career durability (Ibarra et al., 2010). Intersectionality further situates these processes within broader institutional power dynamics (Collins, 2019; Crenshaw, 1989).
By integrating these streams, the study conceptualises executive sustainability as relationally sustained through structural legitimacy, cultural belonging and developmental continuity. This synthesis extends existing IOP scholarship by positioning tenure durability as a systemic governance outcome rather than an individual endurance challenge.
Gendered organisation theory and longitudinal structural validation
Gendered organisation theory argues that organisational systems are not gender neutral but embed historically masculinised norms within hierarchies, evaluation processes and informal power networks (Acker, 1990). The ‘ideal worker’ remains implicitly male, privileging uninterrupted career trajectories and agentic leadership styles. Although this perspective has been widely used to explain advancement barriers, its implications for tenure durability are less well-developed.
Research demonstrates that gender bias persists within performance appraisal and succession systems (Castilla & Benard, 2010; Heilman & Caleo, 2018). Contemporary legitimacy scholarship further shows that leader evaluations are dynamically constructed and influenced by gendered prototypes (Tremmel & Wahl, 2023). Governance research also emphasises that executive authority is sustained through institutional endorsement rather than formal title alone. Homosocial reproduction processes reinforce these dynamics by privileging successors who resemble incumbents (Kanter, 1977; Sealy & Singh, 2020).
The present study extends this literature temporally through the concept of structural legitimacy. While appointment confers formal authority, legitimacy must be reinforced through consistent inclusion in strategic forums, symmetrical performance scrutiny, and alignment between mandate and influence. Where endorsement remains conditional, executives enter recurring validation cycles in which authority must be continually re-established. From an IOP perspective, structural legitimacy reflects institutional endorsement stability – the extent to which governance systems embed authority rather than symbolically grant it. Persistent conditionality may not trigger an immediate exit but can gradually erode tenure sustainability through cumulative legitimacy strain.
Role congruity theory and temporal legitimacy erosion
Role congruity theory explains prejudice towards women leaders as arising from perceived incongruence between stereotypically feminine attributes and traditionally masculine leadership prototypes (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Women may be penalised for displaying assertiveness (perceived as unfeminine) or warmth (perceived as insufficiently authoritative), resulting in the well-documented ‘double bind’ in organisational evaluation contexts. Contemporary research confirms that leadership legitimacy remains socially constructed and shaped by gendered prototypes (Tremmel & Wahl, 2023).
Most applications of role congruity theory examine selection or discrete performance appraisal settings. However, legitimacy is not secured at appointment; it is continuously negotiated through ongoing interaction, decision-making and behavioural interpretation. Inclusion scholarship suggests that relational climates and norms influence how leadership behaviours are interpreted (Randel et al., 2018), while psychological safety enables authentic participation without disproportionate reputational risk (Dong et al., 2024; Edmondson, 1999). Where congruity tensions are repeatedly activated, for example, when assertiveness is reframed as aggressiveness or collaboration as weakness, evaluative scrutiny may intensify rather than dissipate.
The concept of temporal legitimacy erosion extends role congruity theory longitudinally. Rather than a single evaluative barrier, executives may encounter cumulative micro-evaluations that gradually destabilise authority perceptions. Over time, such sustained incongruence can contribute to relational strain and increased exit vulnerability.
Within the relational sustainability framework, role congruity theory therefore informs the cultural belonging domain by explaining how behavioural calibration and performative adaptation emerge as strategies for navigating masculinised leadership norms. This extension situates congruity tensions not only as entry barriers but as ongoing determinants of tenure durability.
Inclusion climate, psychological safety and executive belonging
Inclusion climate research has advanced substantially within IOP. Inclusion is conceptualised as the simultaneous experience of belongingness and uniqueness, with inclusive climates linked to engagement, commitment and performance outcomes (Shore et al., 2018). Inclusive human resource (HR) practices further shape fairness perceptions and organisational trust (Nishii, 2013). Psychological safety, defined as a shared belief that the environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson, 1999), enables authentic participation and constructive dissent. Recent meta-analytic evidence confirms that inclusive leadership positively predicts psychological safety, which in turn reduces turnover intentions (Dong et al., 2024; Lee & Shin, 2024; Shafaei et al., 2024).
However, most inclusion and psychological safety research focuses on employee or team-level populations rather than executive elites. Executive contexts differ materially: strategic decisions carry reputational exposure, power visibility is heightened, and peer scrutiny is intensified. In such environments, deficits in psychological safety may not manifest as immediate disengagement but as increased impression management and behavioural calibration, diverting cognitive resources from strategic innovation.
Within the relational sustainability framework, cultural belonging refers to authentic integration into leadership culture, encompassing freedom to dissent, inclusion in informal influence networks and tolerance for behavioural diversity. Where belonging is performative rather than genuine, executives may remain structurally embedded yet psychologically detached. This detachment may accumulate gradually, contributing to sustainability fragility rather than immediate withdrawal.
By extending inclusion climate and psychological safety scholarship to executive tiers, the present study bridges micro-level relational constructs with macro-level tenure outcomes, positioning psychological safety as a stabilising mechanism for leadership sustainability.
Sponsorship, career capital and developmental continuity
Sponsorship represents a structurally distinct mechanism from mentorship. Whereas mentorship provides guidance and psychosocial support, sponsorship entails active endorsement, reputational risk-taking and facilitation of access to high-visibility opportunities (Ibarra et al., 2010). In executive contexts, such advocacy converts relational capital into structural positioning.
Career capital theory suggests that advancement and durability depend on accumulated human, social and reputational capital (Ng et al., 2005). Sponsorship functions as a catalytic mechanism within this system. Evidence indicates that women receive sponsorship less frequently than men, limiting access to strategically central assignments (Schwartz et al., 2023; Sealy & Singh, 2020). Access to stretch assignments and profit-and-loss roles is strongly associated with leadership credibility and upward mobility (DeRue & Wellman, 2009; Fernandez-Mateo & Kaplan, 2018). Differential portfolio allocation therefore shapes not only advancement but tenure durability.
Within the relational sustainability framework, sponsorship and portfolio centrality constitute mechanisms of developmental continuity, defined as perceived future trajectory viability within governance systems. When advocacy is absent, and access to revenue-critical portfolios is restricted, mobility pathways become opaque and sustainability temporally bounded. Sponsorship also signals institutional endorsement; perceived organisational support predicts commitment and reduced turnover intentions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). At the executive-level, sponsorship reinforces structural legitimacy and cultural belonging, thereby stabilising tenure sustainability.
Intersectionality and institutional layering in South Africa
Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) emphasises that gender cannot be analysed independently of race, class and historical context. Within South Africa’s post-apartheid economy, leadership trajectories are shaped by the interplay of racial transformation mandates and entrenched patriarchal governance norms.
Mahabeer and Naidoo (2023) demonstrate that black women executives navigate compounded scrutiny due to intersecting identity dimensions. While transformation policies increase representational access, they do not automatically recalibrate informal power systems. Institutional layering theory suggests that new regulatory frameworks may coexist with older cultural logics rather than entirely displacing them.
This layered context intensifies legitimacy pressures. Executives may be symbolically included to satisfy transformation metrics while remaining marginal within informal governance networks. Intersectionality therefore deepens understanding of structural legitimacy fragility and cultural belonging strain within the South African private sector.
From access to sustainability: Towards relational integration
Taken together, these theoretical strands converge on a central insight: leadership sustainability cannot be reduced to individual competence or ambition. Structural systems, cultural norms and developmental pathways interact over time to shape tenure trajectories.
The present study synthesises these literatures into relational sustainability, a mid-range framework conceptualising executive tenure as an equilibrium among structural legitimacy, cultural belonging and developmental continuity. Rather than introducing entirely new constructs, the framework integrates established IOP theories into a cohesive process model. Sustainability is achieved when institutional validation, cultural integration and forward trajectory viability remain synchronised. Misalignment across domains generates cumulative relational strain.
Research design
Epistemological orientation
This study was grounded in an interpretivist epistemology, privileging lived experience, meaning-making and subjective interpretation as legitimate sources of knowledge. Executive tenure decisions are complex, contextually embedded and temporally negotiated. Quantitative indicators such as tenure duration or turnover rates capture outcomes but do not illuminate how leaders interpret and make sense of their trajectories. An interpretivist approach, therefore, enabled exploration of how women executives constructed the meanings of legitimacy, belonging, developmental opportunity and exit.
The study adopted a relativist ontological stance, recognising that organisational realities are socially constructed through interaction, discourse and institutional norms. Executive sustainability was not assumed to be an objective condition but was examined as a relational phenomenon that emerged from participants’ interpretations of their organisational environments.
Methodological approach: Interpretative phenomenological analysis
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was selected as the methodological approach (Smith et al., 2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis is particularly suited to examining complex, emotionally laden experiences within professional identity contexts. It prioritises depth over breadth and seeks to understand how individuals make sense of significant life transitions.
Executive exit represents a high-stakes professional inflection point involving identity negotiation, institutional evaluation and strategic recalibration. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis’s idiographic focus enabled detailed exploration of each participant’s narrative before identifying cross-case patterns. The approach aligns with the study’s objective of generating theory-informed insight grounded in lived executive experience.
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis involves a double hermeneutic: participants interpret their experiences, and the researcher interprets those interpretations. Reflexivity was therefore integral to the analytic process, particularly given the researcher’s professional background in senior HR leadership. Reflexive journaling was used throughout data collection and analysis to bracket assumptions and monitor interpretive positioning.
Participants
Eight senior women executives from South Africa’s private sector participated in the study (Table 1). Participants were recruited using purposive sampling to ensure alignment with predefined inclusion criteria. Eligible participants had: (1) served in a C-suite or equivalent strategic executive role, (2) held the role for a minimum of 3 years, and (3) voluntarily exited the position. These criteria were established to ensure that participants could provide reflective insight into factors influencing executive tenure sustainability.
Participants represented diverse sectors, including automotive, mining, media, professional services, consulting and finance. Prior to exit, tenure in executive roles ranged from 3 years to 8 years. Although participants operated across different industries, sample homogeneity was achieved through their shared experience as senior executive leaders in the South African private sector and their voluntary departure from such roles.
The sample size aligns with IPA methodological guidance, which emphasises small, relatively homogeneous samples to facilitate idiographic depth and nuanced meaning-making (Smith et al., 2021). This approach enabled a detailed exploration of the systemic and relational dynamics that shape executive tenure in the South African corporate context.
Age and educational qualifications were not included in the participant profile because they did not form part of the study’s inclusion criteria and were not considered central to the study’s objective of exploring women executives’ experiences of leadership tenure sustainability. In keeping with the idiographic orientation of IPA, participant selection focused on shared experiential characteristics, specifically occupying a C-suite or equivalent executive position and having voluntarily exited an executive leadership role (Smith et al., 2021). Furthermore, given the relatively small and identifiable population of senior women executives within the South African private sector, the inclusion of additional demographic information may have increased the risk of participant identification. To preserve confidentiality while providing sufficient contextual information, only participant characteristics directly relevant to the phenomenon under investigation were reported, consistent with established principles of trustworthiness, anonymity and participant protection in qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Smith et al., 2021).
Data collection
Data were collected through semi-structured, in-depth interviews lasting 60 min – 90 min. Semi-structured interviewing enables rich, participant-centred exploration while maintaining a consistent conceptual focus and is widely used in interpretive research to capture lived experience and meaning-making (Kallio et al., 2016; Qu & Dumay, 2011; Smith et al., 2021). Interviews were conducted virtually to accommodate geographic dispersion across South Africa and the scheduling constraints of senior executive roles, consistent with established qualitative guidance on videoconference-based interviewing (Archibald et al., 2019).
An interview guide was developed to explore participants’ experiences across structural, cultural and developmental dimensions of executive leadership tenure. Questions examined perceptions of legitimacy and authority following appointment; inclusion in formal and informal governance forums; behavioural expectations and leadership norms; access to sponsorship and strategically significant assignments; transparency in succession planning processes; and the organisational and personal factors influencing the decision to exit. The semi-structured format allowed participants to narrate their leadership trajectories in-depth while enabling the researcher to probe for clarification and elaboration, a practice consistent with interpretative phenomenological inquiry (Smith et al., 2021).
All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to facilitate detailed analysis.
Data analysis
Data were analysed using IPA in accordance with the six-stage framework articulated by Smith et al. (2021). Consistent with IPA’s idiographic orientation, analysis began with repeated reading and re-reading of each transcript to facilitate immersion and holistic engagement with participants’ lived experiences. Detailed initial noting followed, incorporating descriptive, linguistic and conceptual commentary to explore both the content and construction of meaning within each narrative. Particular analytic attention was paid to expressions of legitimacy, belonging, sponsorship dynamics and future orientation, given their relevance to executive tenure sustainability.
Emergent themes were subsequently developed within each individual case, capturing core experiential meanings grounded in participants’ accounts. These themes were then clustered into superordinate categories through abstraction and pattern identification. Each case was analysed independently before proceeding to cross-case synthesis to preserve idiographic integrity. Cross-case analysis examined convergent and divergent patterns across participants, enabling identification of shared systemic dynamics while retaining contextual nuance.
The analysis initially generated multiple emergent themes within individual participants’ accounts. Through iterative abstraction and clustering, these themes were consolidated into superordinate themes reflecting recurring patterns across cases. Cross-case synthesis subsequently revealed three higher-order experiential domains: authority, belonging and future opportunity. These domains informed the development of the relational sustainability framework presented later in the manuscript.
Reflexive analytic memos were maintained throughout the process to document interpretive decisions and theme evolution. In addition, peer debriefing with the doctoral supervisor strengthened analytic credibility by challenging theme development and ensuring theoretical coherence.
Trustworthiness was addressed in accordance with the criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Credibility was enhanced through repeated engagement with the interview transcripts, iterative coding, reflexive memo writing and peer debriefing throughout the analytic process. Verbatim quotations are presented within the findings to ensure that interpretations remain grounded in participants’ lived experiences and to provide transparency between the data and the resulting interpretations. Dependability was supported by maintaining a comprehensive audit trail that documented coding decisions, theme development and analytic processes. Confirmability was strengthened through ongoing reflexive journaling and critical self-reflection regarding the researcher’s interpretive role, particularly given her professional background in executive HR leadership, as well as through cross-case analysis to ensure that themes reflected patterned experiences rather than isolated accounts. Transferability was supported through the provision of participant and contextual information relevant to the study setting, enabling readers to assess the applicability of the findings to comparable executive leadership contexts within the South African private sector (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Table 2 illustrates the analytic progression from participant experiences to emergent themes and higher-order experiential domains. These higher-order domains subsequently informed the development of the relational sustainability framework.
| TABLE 2: Illustration of theme development process. |
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Johannesburg Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management (Ref. No. IPPM-2023-740[D]) prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, and all participants received information regarding the purpose of the study, the nature of their involvement and their rights as research participants. Written informed consent was obtained before participation commenced.
Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any stage without penalty and request the removal of their data prior to the commencement of analysis. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout the study through the use of pseudonyms and the removal of identifying personal and organisational information from transcripts and reported findings.
Given the relatively small and identifiable population of senior women executives within the South African private sector, particular care was taken to minimise the risk of participant identification. Only participant characteristics directly relevant to the study were reported, and potentially identifying contextual details were omitted where necessary.
Interview recordings, transcripts, consent forms and analytic records were stored securely on password-protected devices accessible only to the researcher and supervisor. Throughout the research process, the principles of respect, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice guided data collection, analysis and reporting.
Results
Across cases, participants described executive exit not as the result of isolated dissatisfaction, performance failure or a single conflict, but as a gradual process shaped by multiple, interconnected experiences over time. Although the circumstances surrounding departure differed, participants consistently reflected on challenges relating to authority, inclusion, support, progression and future opportunity. Rather than depicting abrupt rupture, participants described a process of progressive recalibration in which they continually assessed the sustainability of their leadership roles and their alignment with organisational environments.
The themes presented below emerged inductively through the analysis of participants’ accounts. While the findings are organised into three overarching experiential themes, these themes reflect recurring patterns identified across participants’ lived experiences rather than predetermined analytical categories. As such, they should be understood as descriptive representations of participants’ experiences. The relational sustainability framework presented later in the manuscript was developed subsequently through the interpretation and synthesis of these recurring patterns during the cross-case analytic process.
Experiencing conditional authority and recurrent validation
Experiences related to conditional authority and recurrent validation were evident among all participants, although they manifested differently across organisational and industry contexts.
Participants consistently described a disconnect between holding formal executive positions and experiencing genuine organisational authority, influence and acceptance. While all participants held senior leadership roles and carried substantial organisational responsibility, many reported that legitimacy was not automatically conferred by appointment. Instead, they described a continual need to prove their competence, justify their presence and earn recognition in ways they perceived their peers were not required to do.
A recurring pattern across participant accounts was the experience of exclusion from informal networks where relationships were cultivated, trust was established, and influence was exercised. Although participants were formally included in executive structures and governance processes, they often felt marginalised from the social spaces where strategic conversations and relationship-building occurred.
Reflecting on her experience as one of the few women of colour within a predominantly white, male executive leadership environment in the automotive sector, one participant described how her sense of inclusion and psychological safety was affected by feelings of marginalisation and exclusion from influential leadership networks:
‘My psychological safety was compromised … I felt excluded.’ (P1, Automotive, 6 years)
This account illustrates how participants’ experiences of executive leadership extended beyond formal organisational structures and responsibilities. For some women, exclusion from informal networks and limited access to influential relationships contributed to feelings of isolation and reduced their sense of belonging within executive leadership environments.
Similarly, reflecting on her experience leading a high-profile organisational initiative within the media sector, another participant described how visibility and responsibility did not necessarily translate into influence over strategic decisions:
‘I was made the face of the project, but had no say in its direction.’ (P3, Media, 4 years)
Although these experiences occurred in different organisational contexts, both participants described a disconnect between formal inclusion and meaningful influence. Across cases, participants suggested that visibility, responsibility, and positional status did not necessarily translate into participation in strategic decision-making processes. Instead, influence was frequently experienced as dependent upon access to informal networks, trusted relationships and decision-making forums that extended beyond formal governance structures.
These accounts highlight how formal leadership roles and public visibility were not always accompanied by meaningful participation in strategic organisational conversations. Across cases, participants described influence as being shaped not only by formal authority but also by access to decision-making forums, informal networks and opportunities to contribute to strategic organisational discussions. Where such access was limited, participants frequently felt their authority constrained despite holding senior leadership positions.
Several participants described how race, gender, age and cultural identity intersected to shape perceptions of their authority, competence and legitimacy within executive leadership environments.
Reflecting on her experience within a predominantly white, Afrikaans-speaking executive leadership environment in the financial services sector, one participant described the challenges associated with navigating leadership as both a racial and gender minority:
‘I was one of the few women of colour in a white Afrikaans male space.’ (P2, Mining, 5 years)
This account highlights how participants’ experiences of executive leadership were shaped not only by their formal roles and responsibilities but also by the broader cultural and demographic composition of the organisations where they worked. Participants occupying minority positions within executive teams often described heightened visibility, feelings of exclusion and the need to continually navigate environments where they differed from the dominant leadership group.
Reflecting on her experience as a young black woman executive in the automotive sector, one participant described the heightened visibility associated with occupying a leadership role while simultaneously navigating racial, gender and age-related differences:
‘Being a young woman of colour made me feel constantly under scrutiny.’ (P1, Automotive, 6 years)
Although these experiences occurred within different organisational and industry contexts, both participants described heightened awareness of their visibility as members of under-represented groups within executive leadership teams. Across cases, participants frequently associated difference with increased observation, evaluation and scrutiny. Rather than experiencing visibility primarily as recognition or influence, participants often described it as a source of pressure that heightened their awareness of how others might interpret their actions, decisions and leadership behaviours.
These accounts illustrate how visibility within executive leadership was not always experienced as a source of inclusion or influence. Instead, participants described heightened awareness of being observed, evaluated and judged through multiple identity lenses, contributing to a persistent sense of scrutiny and pressure to perform. The need to repeatedly demonstrate competence emerged strongly across participant narratives. Several participants described situations in which their expertise was questioned, overlooked or subjected to additional verification despite their executive status and professional accomplishments.
Reflecting on her experience within a predominantly white male executive leadership environment in the automotive sector, one participant explained:
‘I had to prove myself over and over again before people accepted that I knew what I was talking about.’ (P1, Automotive, 6 years)
Similarly, discussing her experience as a senior executive in the mining industry, another participant described the ongoing effort required to establish credibility:
‘I often felt that I had to work twice as hard to be seen as equally competent.’ (P8, Mining, 6 years)
Although the organisational contexts differed, participants consistently described legitimacy as something that required continual reinforcement rather than something automatically conferred through executive appointment. For participants in both the automotive and mining sectors, credibility remained subject to ongoing evaluation despite extensive leadership experience and formal authority. These accounts suggest that executive legitimacy was experienced as conditional and repeatedly negotiated rather than institutionally secured.
Participants further reflected on broader organisational systems and leadership norms that they perceived to privilege particular identities and leadership styles. Many viewed these norms as historically embedded and resistant to change.
Reflecting on her experience of progressing through executive leadership within the mining sector, a participant with 6 years of executive tenure described how organisational structures and leadership norms continued to reflect historical assumptions about leadership:
‘The workplace we are in today was designed for men by men.’ (P8, Mining, 6 years)
Discussing her experience as a senior executive in the financial services industry, one participant reflected on the cultural norms embedded within leadership structures:
‘The workplace wasn’t only designed for men by men, it was also designed for a certain cultural paradigm of men.’ (P2, Mining, 5 years)
These reflections indicate that participants understood their experiences not simply as isolated interpersonal incidents but as manifestations of broader organisational structures and assumptions about who naturally belongs in positions of power. Existing leadership norms were often perceived as reflecting historical patterns of privilege that continued to shape contemporary executive environments.
Participants further described situations in which they carried substantial responsibility while having limited influence over strategic decisions or receiving limited recognition for their contributions. In these instances, visibility did not necessarily translate into authority.
Reflecting on her experience of leading significant organisational initiatives within the media sector, one participant described how responsibility and effort were not always accompanied by visibility or recognition:
‘They were happy for me to do the legwork but someone else stood on stage and spoke.’ (P3, Media, 4 years)
Reflecting on her experience within a senior leadership role in the consulting sector, a third participant described the disconnect between accountability and decision-making authority:
‘I was accountable for the outcome, but I wasn’t included when the key decisions were made.’ (P7, Consulting, 5 years)
These experiences created the perception that participants were sometimes positioned as symbolic representatives of diversity, yet excluded from the centres of organisational influence. Participants described frustration when responsibility was delegated without corresponding authority or recognition.
The emotional consequences of these experiences were evident throughout participant accounts. Continually navigating exclusion, scrutiny and the need for repeated validation contributed to feelings of exhaustion and diminished psychological safety.
Reflecting on the cumulative impact of navigating executive leadership within the professional services sector, one participant explained:
‘You become tired of always having to prove that you belong in the room.’ (P4, Professional Services, 7 years)
Similarly, discussing the long-term effects of continual scrutiny within a senior leadership role in the automotive sector, another participant reflected:
‘The constant questioning wears you down over time.’ (P1, Automotive, 6 years)
These accounts suggest that challenges to legitimacy were not isolated incidents but cumulative experiences that affected participants’ wellbeing, confidence and long-term commitment to executive leadership roles.
Across cases, participants consistently linked their experiences of authority and influence to access to informal networks, recognition of expertise, inclusion in decision-making processes and the degree to which organisational systems reinforced their leadership roles. Formal appointment alone was rarely experienced as sufficient to secure enduring acceptance or influence. Where legitimacy remained conditional, participants described increasing frustration, emotional fatigue and uncertainty regarding their long-term sustainability within executive leadership positions. These experiences suggest that the ability to sustain executive leadership roles depended not only on formal authority but also on the extent to which that authority was recognised, supported and reinforced within organisational environments.
Navigating acceptance, authenticity and psychological safety
Challenges related to acceptance, authenticity and psychological safety were reported by all participants, although the specific forms of behavioural adaptation and identity management varied.
Beyond questions of authority and legitimacy, participants described the challenge of achieving authentic inclusion within executive leadership environments. While many had secured senior leadership positions, they frequently reported feeling that acceptance within executive culture remained conditional. Rather than leading authentically, participants described adapting their behaviour, communication styles and leadership approaches to align with prevailing organisational expectations.
A recurring theme across participant accounts was the perception that certain versions of leadership were more readily accepted than others. Participants described becoming acutely aware of behavioural norms governing executive interactions and learning to modify aspects of themselves to navigate these expectations successfully.
Reflecting on her experience navigating executive leadership within the financial services sector, one participant described how organisational expectations shaped the way she presented herself and engaged with colleagues:
‘You learn very quickly what version of yourself is acceptable.’ (P2, Mining, 5 years)
This statement captures the ongoing process of behavioural calibration described by several participants. Acceptance was often perceived as dependent upon conforming to established leadership norms rather than expressing one’s authentic leadership identity. Participants described monitoring how they communicated, how strongly they expressed disagreement and how visible they made their emotions.
Reflecting on her experience as one of the few women of colour within a predominantly white male executive leadership environment in the automotive sector, another participant described the ongoing adjustments she made to navigate different leadership audiences and expectations:
‘I was constantly adjusting how I spoke, how I responded, and how I presented myself depending on who was in the room.’ (P1, Automotive, 6 years)
Although the nature of these adjustments varied across organisational contexts, participants consistently described modifying aspects of their behaviour, communication styles and leadership approaches in response to perceived expectations within executive environments. Across cases, behavioural adaptation emerged not as an isolated coping strategy but as a recurring feature of executive leadership experience. Participants’ accounts suggest that acceptance was frequently experienced as contingent upon alignment with prevailing leadership norms, creating tension between authentic self-expression and organisational acceptance.
For many participants, this adaptation was experienced as necessary for professional survival rather than personal preference. Although such adjustments sometimes facilitated acceptance, they also created tension between professional success and personal authenticity.
Several participants described the emotional labour associated with managing perceptions. Rather than focusing solely on strategic priorities and organisational performance, they found themselves devoting considerable energy to anticipating how their behaviour would be interpreted by colleagues and senior stakeholders.
Discussing the demands of operating within a senior executive role in the media sector, one participant reflected on the significant effort required to manage how she was perceived by colleagues and stakeholders:
‘I was managing perceptions more than I was managing strategy.’ (P3, Media, 4 years)
Reflecting on her experience participating in executive decision-making forums within the mining sector, another participant described the cognitive effort associated with anticipating how her views and contributions would be received:
‘You spend so much time thinking about how your message will land that it distracts from the actual work.’ (P8, Mining, 6 years)
Although participants described these experiences within different organisational and industry contexts, a common pattern emerged across cases. Participants frequently portrayed executive leadership as requiring continual monitoring of how their behaviour, communication and decisions would be interpreted by others. Rather than directing their attention exclusively towards strategic priorities, they described expending considerable cognitive and emotional energy managing perceptions, anticipating reactions and mitigating potential negative evaluations. Across cases, impression management was experienced not as an occasional leadership demand but as a persistent feature of executive life, contributing to emotional fatigue and diverting attention from strategic leadership responsibilities. These accounts suggest that the burden of navigating acceptance extended beyond interpersonal relationships, becoming an ongoing psychological demand that shaped participants’ experiences of executive sustainability.
These experiences suggest that participants frequently carried an additional cognitive and emotional burden that extended beyond the technical requirements of their executive roles. The need to continually assess and manage their perceived status influenced their confidence, participation and sense of belonging within leadership environments.
Participants also described challenges relating to psychological safety. Several reported exercising caution when expressing dissenting opinions, challenging decisions or introducing alternative perspectives. They described environments where disagreement was perceived as carrying greater reputational risk for women leaders than for their male counterparts.
Reflecting on her experience challenging strategic decisions within a senior leadership team in the mining sector, one participant explained:
‘I learned to choose my battles because speaking up always seemed to come at a cost.’ (P8, Mining, 6 years)
Discussing her experience contributing to executive decision-making discussions within the financial services sector, another participant reflected:
‘There were things I stopped saying because I knew the reaction would focus on me rather than the issue.’ (P2, Mining, 5 years)
These accounts suggest that participants did not always experience executive environments as spaces where they could engage openly and authentically. Instead, many described carefully calculating the potential consequences of challenging dominant views or organisational norms.
Experiences of belonging were further complicated by race, gender and other intersecting identities. Participants who held multiple minority positions within executive environments frequently described feeling highly visible yet lacking relational support.
Reflecting on her experience navigating executive leadership as one of the few women from an under-represented racial group within the organisation, one participant explained:
‘I was one of the only coloured women there, and I constantly had to adjust how I spoke.’ (P2, Mining, 5 years)
Similarly, reflecting on her experience as a senior executive in the consulting sector, another participant described how visibility did not always translate into genuine understanding or inclusion:
‘Being different meant you were always noticed, but not necessarily understood.’ (P7, Consulting, 5 years)
Together, these accounts suggest that visibility within executive leadership environments was often accompanied by heightened awareness of difference and scrutiny, rather than by a stronger sense of inclusion, belonging or relational support. Several participants also described a sense of isolation associated with executive leadership. Despite occupying senior positions, they often reported limited opportunities for authentic connection, support or shared understanding.
Reflecting on the isolation she experienced after reaching executive leadership within the professional services sector, one participant described the absence of trusted peers and support structures:
‘It was lonely at the top. No one to bounce things off.’ (P4, Professional Services, 7 years)
Reflecting on the limited availability of peer support within executive leadership, another participant described the sense of isolation she experienced while navigating complex organisational demands in the mining sector:
‘There were very few people who understood what I was navigating.’ (P8, Mining, 6 years)
The experience of isolation extended beyond workload or organisational responsibility. Participants described feeling emotionally disconnected from leadership teams and unsupported when confronting complex organisational challenges. In some cases, this isolation contributed to diminishing attachment to the organisation and reduced commitment to remaining in executive roles.
Participants further described situations in which organisational values appeared misaligned with their personal values. For some, this created a growing sense of moral discomfort that ultimately influenced their decisions about their future within the organisation.
Discussing the factors that ultimately influenced her decision to leave a senior leadership role in the professional services sector, one participant reflected on the growing tension between her personal values and the organisational environment:
‘I couldn’t continue working in a place where I felt morally conflicted every day.’ (P4, Professional Services, 7 years)
This illustrates how belonging extended beyond interpersonal acceptance to include alignment between individual values and organisational culture. Where participants experienced persistent value incongruence, they described increasing emotional disengagement and questioning the sustainability of their continued participation in the organisation.
Across cases, participants described acceptance and inclusion as extending beyond representation within leadership structures. Their experiences suggest that sustainability was influenced by the extent to which they felt able to participate authentically, express divergent perspectives, experience psychological safety and contribute without disproportionate reputational risk. Where belonging remained conditional, participants described increased emotional labour, diminished engagement and a gradual erosion of their connection to the organisation over time. These experiences suggest that sustaining executive leadership required more than formal inclusion; it depended on the extent to which participants felt psychologically safe, authentically accepted and able to contribute without continually managing perceptions or navigating disproportionate relational risks.
Seeking opportunity, sponsorship and future possibility
All participants described future opportunity, progression, sponsorship or developmental support as important considerations shaping their commitment to executive leadership roles.
Participants consistently linked their decisions to remain in or leave executive leadership positions to their perceptions of future opportunities within their organisations. While legitimacy and belonging influenced their day-to-day experiences, participants frequently described long-term sustainability as dependent upon whether they could envision a meaningful future for themselves within the organisation.
Across cases, participants reflected on the importance of ongoing growth, exposure, sponsorship and access to developmental opportunities. The absence of these experiences often prompted participants to reassess their long-term commitment and consider alternative career pathways.
Reflecting on her experience within a senior leadership role in the mining sector, one participant described how the absence of career development discussions signalled diminishing opportunities for future progression:
‘When progression conversations stop, you start planning your exit.’ (P8, Mining, 6 years)
This statement captures a broader pattern evident across participant accounts. Participants described progression not only as formal promotion but as evidence that the organisation continued to invest in their future. When developmental discussions ceased, participants often interpreted this as a signal that their long-term prospects within the organisation were limited.
Several participants distinguished between mentorship and sponsorship, describing these as fundamentally different forms of support. While mentorship provided advice, encouragement and guidance, sponsorship was viewed as a mechanism through which opportunities, visibility and advancement became possible.
Discussing the different forms of support she experienced throughout her executive career in the professional services sector, one participant reflected on the distinction between mentorship and sponsorship:
‘Mentorship helped me cope; sponsorship would have helped me stay.’ (P4, Professional Services, 7 years)
This distinction was important for participants. While mentorship provided guidance and emotional support, sponsorship was associated with active advocacy from influential leaders, visibility in succession discussions, access to strategically important assignments and endorsement for advancement opportunities. Participants frequently described sponsorship as the mechanism through which future possibilities became tangible rather than aspirational. In its absence, many felt that career progression depended largely on their own efforts. Reflecting on her journey into executive leadership within the media industry, one participant described the absence of structured developmental support and sponsorship:
‘No one mentored me, and I had to figure it all out the hard way.’ (P3, Media, 4 years)
Although participants described different forms of developmental support throughout their careers, a consistent distinction emerged between mentorship and sponsorship. Across cases, mentorship was associated with guidance, encouragement and personal development, while sponsorship was viewed as a mechanism that enabled access to opportunities, visibility, influence and progression. Participants frequently described sponsorship as a signal that the organisation remained invested in their future. In its absence, they often perceived progression as dependent primarily on individual effort rather than institutional support. These accounts suggest that sponsorship functioned not only as a developmental resource but also as an indicator of future possibility and long-term organisational commitment.
While some participants described developing resilience and self-sufficiency in the absence of formal support, their accounts also highlighted the limited availability of structured advocacy, sponsorship and developmental infrastructure. These experiences reinforced the perception that progression often depended on individual perseverance rather than systematic organisational investment in executive development.
Participants also discussed the importance of organisational systems that actively support leadership growth. Several expressed concern that development pathways were not intentionally designed to address the realities and challenges women executives face.
Reflecting on the developmental support available throughout her executive career progression in the automotive sector, one participant observed:
‘There wasn’t a coaching framework or career scaffolding that felt designed with women in mind.’ (P1, Automotive, 6 years)
This reflects a broader perception that developmental support was often generic rather than responsive to the specific barriers participants encountered throughout their leadership journeys. Participants described the need for support structures that addressed not only capability development but also access, visibility, sponsorship and career mobility.
Beyond formal development programmes, participants frequently discussed the significance of role allocation and strategic exposure. Several described observing peers gain access to commercially significant portfolios, operational leadership responsibilities and high-visibility assignments, which enhanced their prospects for progression.
Participants perceived these opportunities as important mechanisms for identifying and preparing future leaders. Limited access to such experiences often created a sense that progression pathways were narrowing despite continued performance and contribution.
Reflecting on the limited opportunities for advancement available within her organisation in the automotive sector, one participant described how performance alone was insufficient to secure progression into more influential leadership positions:
‘You could perform exceptionally well, but if you weren’t given the right opportunities, you remained on the sidelines.’ (P1, Automotive, 6 years)
Similarly, discussing succession planning and access to strategically significant assignments within the media industry, another participant reflected on the unequal distribution of career-enhancing opportunities:
‘The opportunities that accelerated careers always seemed to go to the same people.’ (P3, Media, 4 years)
Despite differences in organisational context, participants consistently linked career progression to access to strategically significant opportunities rather than to performance alone. Across cases, advancement was perceived as dependent on visibility, sponsorship and exposure to commercially important assignments that enhanced leadership credibility and influence. Participants frequently described these opportunities as unevenly distributed, creating uncertainty regarding future progression despite continued contribution and performance. Across cases, future opportunity, progression, sponsorship and developmental support emerged as important considerations shaping participants’ commitment to executive leadership roles. These accounts suggest that access to developmental opportunities served not only as a mechanism for advancement but also as an important indicator of whether participants remained connected to meaningful future pathways within their organisations. Reflecting on the factors that influenced her decision to leave a senior leadership role in the finance sector and pursue an alternative career pathway, one participant described how the demands of executive leadership had become increasingly difficult to reconcile with her personal priorities and desired way of working:
‘I created my own company because I needed the flexibility that the corporate world couldn’t offer.’ (P5, Finance, 3 years)
For this participant, entrepreneurship represented more than a career change. It provided an opportunity to regain control over her professional trajectory, create greater alignment between her personal and professional responsibilities, and establish a working environment that reflected her values and priorities. Similar sentiments were evident across participant accounts. Several women described departure not as a reaction to a single negative experience but as a deliberate and strategic decision made after careful reflection on their long-term wellbeing, career aspirations and future opportunities.
Several participants described reaching a point at which remaining within the organisation no longer aligned with their aspirations, prompting them to actively explore alternative pathways. Reflecting on the period leading up to her departure from a senior executive role in the mining sector, one participant described reaching a point where she no longer believed that meaningful progression or fulfilment would be achieved within her existing organisational environment:
‘I realised I could continue fighting for a future that might never come, or I could create one for myself.’ (P8, Mining, 6 years)
Similarly, discussing her decision to leave executive leadership in the professional services sector, another participant reflected on how her departure represented a conscious choice to pursue alternative opportunities rather than an admission of failure:
‘Leaving wasn’t giving up. It was choosing a different path.’ (P4, Professional Services, 7 years)
These accounts illustrate how participants reframed executive exit as a positive and proactive career decision. Rather than viewing departure as a consequence of defeat, disengagement or organisational rejection, participants frequently described it as an act of agency and self-determination. When opportunities for advancement, influence or alignment appeared increasingly constrained, leaving became a means of preserving professional growth, personal wellbeing and future career aspirations. Across cases, participants characterised departure as a strategic recalibration of their careers rather than a withdrawal from leadership itself.
Across cases, participants described sustainability as closely linked to confidence in future possibility. The presence of sponsorship, developmental support, strategic exposure and visible career pathways reinforced commitment and encouraged continued investment in organisational leadership roles. Conversely, when opportunities appeared restricted, or progression seemed unlikely, participants began to reassess their futures and increasingly considered alternatives outside the organisation.
Taken together, participants’ accounts suggest that commitment to executive leadership roles was influenced not only by current experiences but also by confidence in continued growth, sponsorship and progression opportunities. Where participants could envision a viable and meaningful trajectory within the organisation, sustainability was strengthened. Where prospects became uncertain or constrained, the likelihood of voluntary exit increased.
Cross-case integration: Cumulative relational strain and strategic exit
Although participants discussed challenges relating to authority, belonging and future opportunity as distinct experiences, their narratives suggest that these experiences rarely occurred in isolation. Rather, participants described how multiple pressures accumulated over time, gradually eroding their sense of sustainability within executive leadership roles.
While participants’ experiences differed by industry, organisational context and personal circumstances, a notable convergence emerged across cases. Participants rarely described authority, belonging and future opportunity as independent experiences. Instead, challenges within one domain frequently intensified pressures within another. Exclusion from influential networks often limited access to sponsorship and developmental opportunities, while constrained progression pathways weakened participants’ confidence in their long-term futures within the organisation. Similarly, ongoing efforts to establish legitimacy and manage perceptions frequently contributed to emotional fatigue and diminished organisational attachment. Across cases, executive exit was experienced less as a response to a single organisational event and more as the cumulative consequence of interacting experiences that progressively undermined perceptions of long-term sustainability.
Participants described a gradual process in which repeated experiences of exclusion, constrained opportunity, diminished support and emotional fatigue accumulated and intensified over time. Many reflected on the cumulative impact of navigating executive leadership environments in which they felt compelled to continually establish credibility, manage perceptions and advocate for opportunities while simultaneously fulfilling demanding leadership responsibilities.
Reflecting on her experience in a senior executive role within the automotive sector, one participant described the long-term impact of repeatedly having to justify her decisions, competence and place within the organisation:
‘The constant questioning wears you down over time.’ (P1, Automotive, 6 years)
This account illustrates how participants experienced leadership challenges not as isolated incidents but as recurring pressures that accumulated over time. Experiences that initially appeared manageable became increasingly difficult to sustain when they persisted over extended periods. Participants described the cumulative impact of repeatedly having to establish credibility, navigate organisational politics and advocate for opportunities, all while managing the demands of executive leadership.
Reflecting on the cumulative impact of navigating executive leadership within the professional services sector, one participant described the emotional consequences of repeatedly having to establish legitimacy and credibility:
‘You become tired of always having to prove that you belong in the room.’ (P4, Professional Services, 7 years)
Reflecting on her experience of limited progression opportunities despite sustained performance within the mining sector, another participant described reaching a point where continued effort no longer appeared likely to alter her career trajectory:
‘Eventually you realise that no matter how much more you give, the outcome isn’t likely to change.’ (P8, Mining, 6 years)
Participants frequently described a growing awareness that challenges relating to legitimacy, belonging and progression were interconnected. Difficulties in one area often influenced experiences in another. For example, exclusion from influential networks limited access to sponsorship opportunities, while the absence of sponsorship reduced confidence in future progression. Similarly, ongoing scrutiny and conditional acceptance contributed to diminished psychological safety and emotional exhaustion.
Reflecting on her experience within a senior leadership role in the mining sector, and as one of the few women from an under-represented group within the executive team, one participant described the dual challenge of establishing legitimacy while simultaneously navigating organisational systems she perceived as exclusionary:
‘I felt like I was carrying the burden of proving myself every day, while also trying to navigate a system that wasn’t designed for me.’ (P2, Mining, 5 years)
Discussing the cumulative emotional demands of navigating a predominantly white male executive environment in the automotive sector, another participant described how continual adaptation and impression management gradually depleted her personal resources:
‘You spend so much energy managing the environment around you that eventually there is very little left for yourself.’ (P1, Automotive, 6 year)
Participants did not generally frame their departures as failures or evidence of personal inadequacy. Instead, they described exit as a deliberate and strategic response to environments in which alignment between themselves and their organisations had gradually deteriorated.
Reflecting on her decision to leave executive leadership within the professional services sector, one participant rejected the notion that departure represented failure:
‘Leaving wasn’t giving up. It was choosing a different path.’ (P4, Professional Services, 7 years)
Similarly, discussing the period leading up to her departure from a senior leadership role in the mining sector, another participant described choosing to pursue opportunities beyond the organisation rather than continuing to wait for progression that appeared increasingly unlikely:
‘I realised I could continue fighting for a future that might never come, or I could create one for myself.’ (P8, Mining, 6 years)
These accounts suggest that participants viewed departure as an act of agency rather than withdrawal. Exit represented an opportunity to pursue environments that better aligned with their professional aspirations, personal values, well-being and future goals.
Several participants also described experiencing a sense of relief following their decision to leave. Although departure was often accompanied by uncertainty, it was frequently portrayed as a positive step towards regaining control over their careers and identities.
Reflecting on the period immediately following her departure from executive leadership, one participant described experiencing a sense of relief and emotional release after leaving the organisation:
‘For the first time in a long time, I felt like I could breathe again.’ (P5, Finance, 3 years)
Similarly, another participant reflected on how leaving executive leadership enabled her to regain control over her professional direction and future aspirations:
‘Leaving gave me back a sense of ownership over my future.’ (P4, Professional Services, 7 years)
Across cases, participants described executive sustainability as dependent on the cumulative interaction of authority, inclusion, support, opportunity and future possibility over time. When these experiences were reinforced, participants described greater commitment, engagement and willingness to remain within their organisations. However, when challenges accumulated and persisted without meaningful resolution, participants increasingly questioned the sustainability of their leadership roles. Taken together, the findings suggest that voluntary executive exit was rarely triggered by a single organisational event. Rather, participants described a gradual erosion of alignment between themselves and their organisational environments. Decisions to leave were therefore experienced as deliberate and strategic responses to prolonged misalignment, reflecting efforts to preserve professional identity, wellbeing and future career aspirations.
Discussion
Participants consistently described executive sustainability as shaped by experiences relating to authority, inclusion, sponsorship, progression and future opportunity. Although these experiences manifested differently across cases, they collectively influenced participants’ decisions to remain in or leave executive leadership roles. Importantly, participants rarely experienced these dynamics in isolation. Rather, their accounts suggest that perceptions of legitimacy, belonging, support and opportunity interacted over time, shaping both their day-to-day experiences and longer-term decisions regarding executive tenure. The findings therefore indicate that executive sustainability extends beyond individual capability or performance and is influenced by the quality of relationships, organisational systems and opportunities available within executive leadership environments. Importantly, participants described these experiences as cumulative, with challenges relating to legitimacy, belonging and opportunity often reinforcing one another over time.
Through cross-case interpretation of these interconnected experiences, three recurring domains became evident: structural legitimacy, cultural belonging and developmental continuity. Collectively, these domains informed the development of the relational sustainability framework, which is proposed as an interpretive explanation of how organisational conditions influence executive leadership sustainability. The framework is discussed in the sections that follow.
This reconceptualisation contributes to IOP by shifting the analytic focus from leader-centric explanations of turnover to systemic, governance-based determinants of tenure durability. Rather than interpreting exit through lenses of resilience deficits, fit misalignment or performance failure, the findings underscore the role of institutional design, relational climate and mobility architecture in shaping leadership continuity. The proposed relational sustainability framework may be understood as a theoretically integrated mid-range explanation that synthesises structural, cultural and developmental mechanisms that shape executive tenure. The sections that follow situate these findings within broader IOP scholarship, elaborating the theoretical extensions and applied implications arising from this systemic perspective.
Relational sustainability as a mid-range industrial and organisational psychology theory
Through cross-case interpretation, three interrelated domains emerged: structural legitimacy, cultural belonging and developmental continuity. These domains were derived from participants’ recurring descriptions of challenges relating to legitimacy, belonging, sponsorship, progression and future opportunity across organisational contexts. Collectively, these domains informed the development of the relational sustainability framework, which is proposed as an interpretive explanation of executive leadership sustainability. The findings suggest that executive sustainability is influenced by the interaction of these domains over time. When alignment is maintained across the domains, sustainability appears more likely to be reinforced. Conversely, when misalignment accumulates, cumulative relational strain may emerge, increasing vulnerability to voluntary exit despite competence, performance or formal inclusion.
Mid-range theories occupy a critical space within applied social sciences. They are sufficiently abstract to generate explanatory power across contexts, yet sufficiently bounded to remain empirically testable and practically applicable. The proposed relational sustainability framework exhibits characteristics commonly associated with mid-range theory.
Firstly, the framework integrates established constructs rather than introducing entirely novel variables. Structural legitimacy extends applications of gendered organisation theory (Acker, 1990) by highlighting how legitimacy is negotiated and sustained over time within executive leadership contexts. Cultural belonging draws on inclusion climate and psychological safety research (Edmondson, 1999; Shore et al., 2018). Developmental continuity incorporates sponsorship and career capital scholarship (Ibarra et al., 2010; Ng et al., 2005). Rather than treating these constructs as discrete predictors of engagement or turnover, the framework positions them as interrelated domains that collectively influence executive sustainability.
Secondly, the theory advances beyond descriptive accounts of gendered leadership experience by offering a process explanation. The findings suggest that sustainability is more likely when institutional validation, authentic integration and forward-trajectory viability remain synchronised over time. Misalignment across domains appears to contribute to cumulative relational strain, increasing the probability of voluntary exit.
Thirdly, relational sustainability shifts the explanatory locus from individual deficiency to institutional configuration. Traditional turnover models emphasise attitudinal withdrawal and cognitive evaluation (Hom et al., 2017). While such models remain valuable, they do not fully account for patterned tenure asymmetries at the executive level. The present findings suggest that executive exit often reflects systemic disequilibrium rather than job dissatisfaction.
Relational sustainability offers a diagnostic lens through which organisations may examine executive tenure sustainability risks. It proposes relational alignment across institutional domains as a potential mechanism influencing executive longevity.
Relational sustainability is therefore positioned not as a substitute for established leadership, inclusion or turnover theories, but as an integrative alignment framework that synthesises structural, cultural and developmental determinants of executive tenure durability following appointment.
Extending gendered organisation theory: From access to durability
Gendered organisation theory has traditionally illuminated how organisational structures embed masculine norms that disadvantage women in recruitment, evaluation and promotion (Acker, 1990). The present findings extend this theory temporally by demonstrating that such structures continue to shape lived authority after appointment.
Participants frequently described having to repeatedly establish credibility, justify their authority and navigate informal structures that limited access to influence despite occupying formally appointed executive roles. Fragility in structural legitimacy emerged not solely from overt discrimination but from subtle governance asymmetries, recurrent validation cycles and informal exclusion. Participant accounts suggest that authority was often formally granted yet informally contested. This suggests that gendered structures do not cease operating once women attain leadership roles; rather, they recalibrate.
By introducing the concept of longitudinal structural validation, the ongoing reinforcement of authority following appointment, the study extends gendered organisation theory beyond access barriers. The findings suggest that tenure sustainability is influenced by the extent to which authority is institutionally reinforced following appointment. Where reinforcement appeared inconsistent or uneven, participants frequently described diminished confidence in the sustainability of their executive roles despite formal inclusion.
Refining role congruity theory: Temporal legitimacy erosion
Role congruity theory posits that prejudice towards women leaders arises from perceived incongruence between gender stereotypes and socially constructed leadership expectations (Eagly & Karau, 2002). While the theory has traditionally been applied to hiring bias and performance evaluations, the present findings extend its explanatory reach by foregrounding time as a central mechanism. Participants frequently described modifying their communication styles, regulating emotional expression, moderating assertiveness, carefully choosing when to challenge decisions and monitoring how their behaviour would be interpreted by others in response to perceived expectations regarding how women leaders should behave. Their accounts indicate that congruity tensions are not experienced as isolated selection events but as repeated, cumulative social evaluations that gradually destabilise perceived legitimacy.
Contemporary research on leadership stereotyping confirms that gendered expectations continue to shape leader evaluations through subtle, implicit mechanisms (Tremmel & Wahl, 2023). Over time, such adaptive labour was experienced as psychologically taxing, consistent with evidence that leadership climate signals and diversity-valuing behaviours influence psychological safety and turnover intentions among senior women leaders (Barkhuizen et al., 2022; Dwivedi et al., 2023).
This process may be conceptualised as temporal legitimacy erosion, defined as the gradual weakening of authority perceptions through repeated micro-evaluations and identity-relevant social feedback. Emerging scholarship on workplace microaggressions further supports the view that cumulative, low-intensity evaluative signals can erode professional identity and contribute to withdrawal processes (Kim and Meister 2023). Legitimacy, therefore, is not static; it is dynamically negotiated within relational and institutional contexts.
By introducing this temporal dimension, the present study situates role congruity theory within executive sustainability analysis. The findings suggest that congruity tensions do not merely influence entry into leadership roles or isolated performance appraisals; they may also influence the durability of leadership presence over time. This extension reframes legitimacy as a longitudinal construct, linking stereotype-based evaluation processes to executive tenure outcomes and strengthening the integration between leadership evaluation and turnover research within IOP.
Integrating inclusion climate and psychological safety with tenure outcomes
Inclusion climate scholarship has consistently demonstrated that perceptions of belongingness and uniqueness jointly predict employee engagement, commitment and performance outcomes (Shore et al., 2018). Psychological safety further enables individuals to participate authentically in decision-making contexts without fear of interpersonal risk (Edmondson, 1999). More recent research confirms that inclusive leadership behaviours are positively associated with psychological safety and reduced turnover intentions, reinforcing the relational foundations of retention (Lee & Shin, 2024). Contemporary reviews also highlight psychological safety as a central mechanism linking leadership behaviour to voice, learning and sustained participation in high-stakes environments (Dong et al., 2024).
Participants frequently described feeling accepted only conditionally within executive environments. Many reported adapting their communication styles, managing perceptions, moderating dissent and carefully calibrating their behaviour in response to perceived expectations regarding leadership norms and organisational fit. Their accounts suggest that deficits in cultural belonging and psychological safety did not immediately result in disengagement. Rather, participants described a gradual process in which emotional attachment, organisational identification and commitment progressively weakened over time.
Participants’ accounts suggest that belonging and psychological safety were experienced not as static conditions but as relational resources requiring ongoing reinforcement within executive environments.
The present study extends this body of work to executive tiers, where inclusion dynamics operate within concentrated power structures. When leaders experience diminished psychological safety and feel compelled to manage perceptions rather than advance strategy, emotional attachment and institutional identification appear to weaken progressively. In this context, psychological safety appears to function not merely as a facilitator of engagement but also as a stabilising influence on tenure sustainability.
By integrating inclusion climate and psychological safety with executive tenure outcomes, the study bridges micro-level relational constructs with macro-level sustainability phenomena. This extension expands inclusion scholarship beyond engagement, commitment and retention metrics by linking inclusion climate and psychological safety to executive leadership sustainability and tenure durability.
Sponsorship, strategic centrality and developmental continuity
Sponsorship literature emphasises that advancement into senior leadership depends not merely on competence but on active advocacy, endorsement in succession forums and access to high-visibility, high-stakes assignments that signal executive readiness (Ibarra et al., 2010). More recent scholarship reinforces the view that sponsorship serves as a structural accelerator of career mobility, particularly when sponsors facilitate entry into revenue-critical roles and decision-making arenas that enhance organisational visibility and legitimacy. These dynamics extend beyond mentoring to include political backing, reputational signalling and protection within competitive executive environments.
Career capital theory similarly emphasises that advancement is shaped by the accumulation of reputational and relational capital embedded within organisational networks and strategic assignments, where expanded job scopes, visibility within influential networks and relational ties contribute to career mobility and success (De Vos et al., 2023; Houldsworth et al., 2023; Ng et al., 2005; Wohlgezogen, 2024). Contemporary research continues to demonstrate that career capital is built through exposure to complex roles, boundary-spanning responsibilities and high-impact projects that enhance both credibility and network embeddedness (De Vos et al., 2023; Houldsworth et al., 2023). Access to such experiences is unevenly distributed and frequently mediated by informal sponsorship structures, thereby linking career capital development directly to structural opportunity.
Participants frequently described sponsorship not simply as developmental support but as access to future possibility. They distinguished between mentorship and sponsorship, emphasising that sponsorship created visibility within succession discussions, access to strategically important assignments and opportunities to demonstrate readiness for broader leadership responsibilities. Participants also described reassessing their commitment to remain when opportunities for progression, strategic exposure and portfolio expansion appeared increasingly constrained.
The present findings integrate these constructs within a sustainability framework. Developmental continuity emerged as a forward-facing domain of executive tenure sustainability. Participants’ accounts suggest that the absence of sponsorship and restricted access to revenue-critical portfolios constrained perceptions of future mobility and weakened confidence in long-term positional security. Developmental opportunities were experienced not merely as mechanisms of advancement but as indicators that the organisation continued to invest in their future.
This analysis highlights that executive sustainability depends not solely on current legitimacy but also on visible progression pathways. Strategic portfolio allocation serves as a structural regulator of centrality: assignments to profit-and-loss roles, operational leadership mandates and succession pipelines reinforce executives’ embeddedness within the organisational core. Without access to such strategically central positions, participants frequently questioned the sustainability of their future progression, creating conditions in which executive tenure appeared increasingly temporally bounded. In this sense, sponsorship and portfolio access operate as interdependent mechanisms sustaining both legitimacy and continuity within executive systems.
Bridging leadership and turnover scholarship
Unlike traditional turnover frameworks that largely privilege attitudinal withdrawal (e.g. declining satisfaction or commitment) as the primary mechanism of exit, relational sustainability proposes institutional alignment as a key antecedent of tenure stability. Executive exit may therefore be understood not solely as dissatisfaction-driven withdrawal, but as a manifestation of systemic disequilibrium across relational domains (Bolt et al., 2022; Hom et al., 2017; Balthrop & Jung, 2025).
Participants rarely described their departures as responses to dissatisfaction alone. Instead, they frequently characterised exit as a deliberate and strategic decision made after concluding that opportunities for progression, influence, belonging or alignment were unlikely to improve. Several participants explicitly rejected the notion that leaving represented failure, describing departure instead as a means of preserving professional growth, wellbeing and future possibility.
Participants’ narratives aligned more closely with strategic and event-linked exit logics than affective disengagement. Exit was described as a process of rational recalibration when relational alignment could not be restored, echoing modern formulations of voluntary turnover that emphasise turning points, shocks, and pathway-based decision sequences, rather than gradual attitudinal drift alone (Holtom et al., 2017; Balthrop & Jung, 2025) The findings suggest that executive tenure may be better understood through a systemic alignment paradigm where embeddedness, belonging, and future role viability regulate retention rather than an individual attitudinal paradigm (Peltokorpi & Allen, 2024).
Contextual relevance beyond South Africa
Although developed within the South African private-sector context, the relational sustainability framework has broader relevance for institutional environments characterised by accelerated representational change without parallel cultural recalibration. Contemporary diversity and inclusion scholarship increasingly cautions that rapid demographic shifts often driven by regulatory, reputational or stakeholder pressures do not automatically translate into structural integration or cultural transformation (Shore & Chung, 2024). Organisations may therefore experience symbolic inclusion, where representation improves numerically, yet decision-making power, strategic centrality and informal influence remain unevenly distributed (Bapuji et al., 2024; Dobbin & Kalev, 2022). Within such contexts, relational sustainability offers a diagnostic lens for identifying misalignment between representation, legitimacy and developmental continuity. This proposition is consistent with participants’ accounts, which frequently described situations in which formal inclusion was achieved through appointment to executive roles, while access to influence, sponsorship and informal networks remained constrained.
Beyond South Africa, similar dynamics have been observed in jurisdictions pursuing board quotas, environmental, social, governance (ESG)-linked diversity targets and accelerated leadership diversification strategies, where inclusion rhetoric may outpace embedded structural reform (Kirsch, 2018). Recent global reviews of diversity transitions highlight the risk of ‘decoupling’ between formal policy adoption and lived organisational experience, particularly when cultural norms and informal power networks remain unchanged (Nishii & Leroy, 2022; Shore & Chung, 2024). The framework therefore contributes to a growing body of work emphasising that sustainable inclusion requires alignment across structural, relational and cultural domains rather than relying on representational metrics alone.
However, the South African context intensifies these dynamics through institutional layering. Post-apartheid transformation mandates, including employment equity and board-level representational reforms, operate alongside deeply embedded historical governance norms and sector-specific power structures. Comparative institutional research suggests that such layered regulatory environments generate both opportunity and strain, as formal transformation accelerates while informal authority systems evolve more gradually (Bapuji et al., 2024; Kirsch, 2018). This coexistence of progressive legislative architecture and persistent historical hierarchies provides a particularly valuable context for examining sustainability asymmetries in which inclusion is achieved numerically but not yet relationally stabilised.
In this sense, South Africa offers an analytically intensified case of a broader global phenomenon: diversity transitions without full structural recalibration. Relational sustainability therefore extends beyond its empirical setting by offering a systemic alignment framework through which organisations can evaluate whether representation, legitimacy, belonging and developmental opportunity remain aligned during periods of demographic and leadership transformation.
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to IOP by advancing relational sustainability as a distinct theoretical construct for understanding executive tenure durability. While leadership research has traditionally conceptualised retention as an outcome of engagement, performance or individual resilience (Kaliannan et al., 2023), the present findings position executive sustainability as a systemic phenomenon embedded within HR governance architecture. In doing so, the study introduces executive tenure sustainability as a theoretically differentiated outcome construct, extending leadership and turnover scholarship beyond episodic exit explanations (Bolt et al., 2022; Hom et al., 2017).
The findings further suggest that executive sustainability should not be viewed as synonymous with retention. Whereas retention reflects the outcome of remaining, sustainability reflects the organisational conditions that enable leadership continuity over time.
The framework extends gendered organisation theory (Acker, 1990) by applying it longitudinally to executive tenure. Rather than focusing solely on access barriers, the findings demonstrate how gendered governance structures shape the durability of authority over time. This temporal application advances contemporary calls to examine how institutionalised power dynamics operate within strategic HR systems (Bapuji et al., 2024). The findings suggest that executive legitimacy is not experienced as a static status conferred through appointment but as a condition requiring ongoing structural reinforcement.
The study further refines role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) by conceptualising legitimacy erosion as a gradual, cumulative process rather than a discrete evaluative penalty. Temporal legitimacy fragility was observed where challenges relating to structural legitimacy, cultural belonging, and developmental continuity interacted, producing progressive relational depletion. This perspective aligns with recent work emphasising dynamic legitimacy processes within leadership contexts (Tremmel & Wahl, 2023).
In addition, the findings integrate inclusion climate and sponsorship scholarship into a unified explanatory framework. Whereas inclusion research often centres employee-level belonging (Shore et al., 2022) and sponsorship research focuses on advancement pathways this study demonstrates how cultural belonging and developmental continuity interact to shape tenure stability. Executive sustainability thus emerges at the intersection of structural authority, relational inclusion and mobility architecture.
By bridging leadership sustainability and voluntary turnover research, the study offers an empirically grounded, mid-range theoretical model that is operationalisable and amenable to future empirical testing. Relational sustainability conceptualises tenure durability as systemic equilibrium across institutional domains rather than individual endurance within misaligned systems. In doing so, it contributes to IOP by reframing executive continuity as a function of structural alignment, governance coherence, relational integration and developmental opportunity rather than individual adaptation alone.
Executive sustainability diagnostic model
Building on the relational sustainability framework, this section formalises its applied implications through the executive sustainability diagnostic model (ESDM) (see Figure 1). While the preceding sections articulate a theoretical integration, the ESDM translates that integration into an organisational assessment tool. The model is designed not as a compliance instrument, but as a sustainability diagnostic capable of identifying relational misalignment before exit occurs.
 |
FIGURE 1: Multi-level executive tenure sustainability framework: Institutional, cultural, relational and individual determinants of sustained executive leadership tenure. |
|
The multi-level executive tenure sustainability framework conceptualises sustained executive leadership tenure as a psychologically mediated organisational outcome shaped by interacting macro-, meso-, relational and micro-level processes.
At the institutional (macro) level, governance structures, succession legitimacy and policy fairness establish the formal architecture within which executive authority is granted and maintained. These structures determine whether leadership transitions are transparent and whether organisational rules distribute power equitably. Institutional design therefore sets the structural conditions for tenure stability.
At the organisational culture (meso) level, norms of leadership congruity, identity validation practices and the reproduction of cultural bias shape how women executives are perceived as legitimate leaders. Cultural systems mediate how institutional policies are enacted in practice. Where leadership remains implicitly masculine-coded, formal equality may not translate into experiential legitimacy.
At the relational level, political inclusion or exclusion, network access and sponsorship credibility determine whether executives are integrated into informal power circuits. Because executive influence is often negotiated through informal systems rather than formal reporting lines, relational positioning becomes critical to tenure sustainability. Exclusion from political networks undermines authority even when formal structures remain intact.
At the individual (micro) level, identity coherence, psychological safety and perceived authority reflect how executives experience their leadership roles internally. These micro-level experiences are not isolated phenomena; rather, they are shaped by institutional and relational dynamics. When misalignment occurs across levels, identity strain may emerge, increasing the likelihood of premature exit.
The arrows in the model indicate bidirectional influence across levels. Institutional structures shape culture; culture shapes relational inclusion; relational dynamics influence psychological experience; and sustained tenure emerges when alignment is achieved across all domains.
The framework therefore reframes executive tenure sustainability as a multi-level legitimacy process rather than an individual resilience issue. Sustained tenure is achieved when structural integrity, cultural validation, relational inclusion and psychological coherence operate in synchrony.
Consistent with gendered organisation theory, intersectionality, and role congruity theory, the framework demonstrates how institutionalised gender norms are reproduced through culture and relational systems, ultimately shaping individual leadership identity and tenure sustainability.
While relational climate and psychological safety shape the experiential quality of executive participation, sustainability is equally contingent upon the structural conditions under which authority is exercised. The findings indicate that psychological safety alone cannot compensate for governance ambiguity or contested mandate boundaries. Executive tenure durability, therefore, requires an examination of how authority is embedded, reinforced, and institutionalised within formal organisational systems. This shifts attention from relational processes to structural design, introducing the first diagnostic domain: structural legitimacy.
Domain 1: Structural legitimacy audit
The structural legitimacy domain evaluates the extent to which executive authority is substantively institutionalised within organisational governance systems. Rather than assuming that formal appointment confers embedded legitimacy, this domain examines whether authority is consistently reinforced across both formal decision-making structures and informal power networks.
Diagnostic assessment should consider the degree of inclusion in formal and informal governance forums, the symmetry of performance scrutiny relative to executive peers, and the clarity and stability of role mandates over time. Attention should also be directed towards access to strategic deliberation processes and visibility within board-level and succession discussions, as these arenas signal institutional endorsement and trajectory viability.
Structured governance mapping exercises can assist organisations in identifying participation asymmetries. For example, a systematic analysis of executive committee minutes, succession planning documentation and informal leadership networks may reveal whether authority is substantively embedded or merely symbolically assigned. Where authority is recurrently contested, disproportionately scrutinised or informally marginalised, structural legitimacy fragility is likely to be present. Early identification enables corrective interventions through mandate clarification, governance recalibration and equitable performance evaluation processes, thereby strengthening executive tenure sustainability.
While structural legitimacy establishes the formal foundations of executive authority, embedded governance alone does not guarantee experiential integration. The findings indicate that even where formal authority is secured, the day-to-day cultural conditions within executive teams significantly shape tenure durability. Sustainability, therefore, depends not only on structural reinforcement but also on the relational climate within which authority is enacted.
Domain 2: Leadership climate architecture audit
The leadership climate architecture domain assesses the behavioural norms, interactional patterns and psychological safety conditions that shape executive participation. This domain recognises that executive integration is experienced through daily relational exchanges rather than solely through formal governance mechanisms.
Diagnostic evaluation should examine the extent to which executives perceive freedom to dissent during strategic discussions without reputational penalty, as well as the degree of inclusion within informal leadership networks where influence often consolidates. Particular attention should be paid to behavioural authenticity tolerance, whether executives can exercise authority without excessive identity calibration and to patterns of executive peer support or subtle relational isolation.
Climate assessment tools traditionally applied at employee levels may therefore require adaptation for executive cohorts. Indicators such as executive psychological safety, dissent tolerance and relational endorsement can reveal whether leadership culture functions as a stabilising environment or as a source of cumulative strain. Where behavioural conformity is implicitly enforced, or informal networks gatekeep influence, tenure fragility may emerge despite formal structural legitimacy.
Although structural legitimacy and cultural belonging provide essential foundations for executive integration, sustainability is further shaped by perceived developmental continuity. Participants emphasised that tenure durability depended not only on present inclusion but also on credible signals of future progression. This directs attention towards the mobility systems governing sponsorship, portfolio allocation and succession visibility.
Domain 3: Talent mobility systems audit
The talent mobility systems domain evaluates whether organisational mobility structures provide sustained trajectory viability for executives. This domain shifts the diagnostic lens from relational climate to developmental architecture, examining whether advancement pathways are transparent, equitable and institutionally supported.
Assessment should consider the presence of formalised sponsorship mechanisms rather than reliance on informal advocacy, as well as equity in the allocation of revenue-generating or strategically central portfolios. Transparency of succession planning criteria is critical, as opaque progression processes may erode perceived future viability. Additionally, rotation across strategic business units and access to high-visibility assignments serve as indicators of developmental continuity and institutional endorsement.
Organisations may employ structured talent analytics to map portfolio centrality patterns and sponsorship distribution across executive populations. Where progression pathways appear politically mediated, restricted or developmentally stagnant, tenure sustainability may be compromised. Early detection enables recalibration of the sponsorship architecture, succession transparency and developmental exposure strategies.
Taken together, the three domains form an interconnected diagnostic architecture. Structural legitimacy secures formal authority, leadership climate architecture stabilises relational belonging and talent mobility systems sustain developmental continuity. Executive tenure durability emerges where these domains operate in alignment. Conversely, persistent misalignment across domains may produce cumulative systemic strain, increasing vulnerability to voluntary exit despite high performance or formal inclusion.
Relational alignment index
The ESDM introduces a relational alignment index to conceptualise executive tenure risk as a function of cross-domain alignment. The model proposes that sustainability probability increases when structural legitimacy, leadership climate architecture and talent mobility systems operate coherently. High alignment across all three domains is associated with a strong likelihood of durable executive integration. Conversely, misalignment within a single domain may create moderate vulnerability that remains manageable if compensatory strength exists in the remaining domains. However, when instability persists across multiple domains, cumulative systemic strain is likely to emerge, significantly elevating voluntary exit risk.
The relational alignment index reframes executive turnover analysis from a reactive, post-exit diagnostic exercise towards proactive system calibration. Rather than relying primarily on exit interviews to identify failure points, organisations may apply the diagnostic longitudinally, for example, on an annual basis or prior to succession planning cycles to monitor sustainability risk over time. Such application enables early identification of structural, relational or developmental fragility and supports timely corrective intervention.
In this way, the ESDM operationalises relational sustainability by translating theoretical insights into actionable organisational practice. The framework encourages movement beyond symbolic diversity indicators towards structural redesign that reinforces embedded authority, relational belonging and developmental continuity, thereby strengthening durable leadership integration within South African corporate contexts.
Limitations
While the study provided an interpretive understanding of the lived experiences of women executives who voluntarily exited leadership roles, several limitations should be acknowledged.
Firstly, the study was conducted within an interpretative phenomenological framework using a small, purposively selected sample of women executives from the South African private sector. Consistent with the idiographic orientation of IPA, the purpose was not to produce statistically representative findings but to develop an in-depth understanding of participants’ lived experiences within their organisational and leadership contexts. The findings should therefore be understood as contextually situated interpretations of executive leadership sustainability rather than universal explanations applicable to all women leaders.
Secondly, participants represented a range of private-sector industries, including automotive, mining, media, professional services, consulting and finance. Although this diversity broadened the range of organisational experiences represented, the study did not include executives from the public sector, state-owned enterprises, non-profit organisations or entrepreneurial contexts. Future research may therefore explore whether similar patterns emerge across alternative institutional and governance environments.
Thirdly, all participants had voluntarily exited executive leadership positions. Consequently, the findings reflect the perspectives of women who chose to leave rather than those who remained in executive roles despite experiencing similar organisational conditions. Comparative studies involving both current and former executives may provide additional insight into factors that contribute to leadership sustainability and longevity.
Finally, the relational sustainability framework emerged from the interpretation of participants’ experiences within the South African context. While the framework may offer conceptual relevance beyond the study setting, further research is required to explore its applicability across different cultural, institutional and organisational environments.
Future research directions
Future research should seek to quantitatively operationalise the relational sustainability construct to examine its predictive validity across broader organisational samples. The development and validation of psychometrically sound measures assessing structural legitimacy, executive cultural belonging and developmental continuity would enable empirical testing of sustainability probabilities and cross-domain alignment effects. Such scale development would strengthen the construct’s utility within IOP and support its integration into leadership diagnostics and workforce analytics.
Longitudinal research designs are particularly warranted to assess temporal dynamics. Tracking executive trajectories over time would allow examination of whether early misalignment within a specific domain predicts subsequent relational strain or voluntary exit. This would shift the framework from retrospective explanatory analysis to prospective predictive modelling.
Comparative cross-national research may further illuminate the contextual contingencies of relational sustainability. Investigating whether similar dynamics operate in institutional environments without formal transformation mandates would clarify the extent to which sustainability fragility is context-specific or structurally universal. In addition, extending the framework to other under-represented leadership populations, such as racial minorities in non-transformation contexts or leaders operating within globalised corporate systems, would test its broader applicability.
Collectively, these avenues would strengthen the empirical grounding of relational sustainability as a mid-range theory within IOP and refine its capacity for cross-contextual application.
Conclusion
This study reframes executive tenure as a relational sustainability challenge rather than an individual endurance problem. Through interpretative analysis of women executives’ lived experiences, three interdependent domains were identified: (1) structural legitimacy, (2) cultural belonging and (3) developmental continuity. Sustainability emerged as systemic equilibrium across these domains.
When institutional validation, authentic integration and forward trajectory viability remained aligned, executive presence was stabilised. When misalignment accumulated, cumulative relational strain increased exit vulnerability. Voluntary exit therefore reflected rational recalibration rather than personal inadequacy.
Relational sustainability contributes to IOP by integrating scholarship on leadership, inclusion, sponsorship, and turnover into a unified, testable framework. It shifts organisational focus from pipeline metrics to systemic alignment diagnostics. In institutional contexts marked by accelerated representational change, sustainability depends not merely on access, but on durable structural integration.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Christine D. Charles-Masinga’s doctoral thesis titled ‘Longevity of Executive Women Leaders in the Private Sector’, submitted to the Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg in 2026. The thesis is currently unpublished and not publicly available. The thesis was supervised by Lia M.M. Hewitt. The thesis was reworked, revised and adapted into a journal article for publication. The authors confirm that the content has not been previously published or disseminated and complies with ethical standards for original publication.
During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-5.2 version) to assist with language refinement, structural editing, formatting alignment with journal guidelines and minor stylistic clarification. The content was reviewed and edited by the authors, who take full responsibility for its accuracy.
Competing interests
The authors, Christine D. Charles-Masinga and Lia M.M. Hewitt, declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Christine D. Charles-Masinga: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Lia M.M. Hewitt: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
The data supporting the findings of this study consist of confidential, de-identified interview transcripts from senior executives in the South African private sector. Due to the sensitive nature of executive-level disclosures and the risk of indirect identification, the full dataset is not publicly available. This restriction is in accordance with the ethical clearance conditions granted by the University of Johannesburg Faculty Research Ethics Committee (Reference: IPPM-2023-740[D]).
De-identified excerpts or limited analytic materials may be made available by the corresponding author, Christine D. Charles-Masinga, upon reasonable request and subject to ethical approval and participant confidentiality safeguards.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002
Archibald, M.M., Ambagtsheer, R.C., Casey, M.G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1609406919874596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596
Balthrop, A., & Jung, H. (2025). Shared hardships strengthen bonds: Negative shocks, embeddedness, and employee retention. Journal of Business Logistics, 46(3), https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.70017
Bapuji, H., Ertug, G., Soundararajan, V., & Shaw, J.D. (2024). Invisible inequalities: Barriers, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Management, 50(3), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231205294
Barkhuizen, E.N., Masakane, G., & Van der Sluis, L. (2022). In search of factors that hinder the career advancement of women to senior leadership positions. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 48, a1986. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v48i0.1986
Bolt, E.E.T., Winterton, J., & Cafferkey, K. (2022). A century of labour turnover research: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(4), 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12294
Booysen, L.A.E., & Nkomo, S.M. (2010). Gender role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics: The case of South Africa. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25(4), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411011048164
Bosch, A., & Booysen, L. (2021). Women in business in Africa: (Re)claiming our agency. South African Journal of Business Management, 52(1), a2972. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v52i1.2972
Castilla, E.J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543–676. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543
Collins, P.H. (2019). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press.
Commission for Employment Equity. (2025). 25th Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) annual report (2024/25): Bridging the equity gap through diversity & inclusion. Department of Employment and Labour, Republic of South Africa.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
De Vos, A., Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., & Akkermans, J. (2023). Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, 103196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.011
DeRue, D.S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859–875. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015317
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2022). Getting to diversity: What works and what doesn’t. Harvard University Press.
Dong, R.K., Li, X., & Roxas Hernan, B. (2024). Psychological safety and psychosocial safety climate in workplace: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review towards a research agenda. Journal of Safety Research, 91(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2024.08.001
Dwivedi, P., Gee, I.H., Withers, M.C., & Boivie, S. (2023). No reason to leave: The effects of CEO diversity-valuing behavior on psychological safety and turnover for female executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(7), 1262–1276. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001071
Eagly, A.H., & Heilman, M.E. (2016). Gender and leadership: Introduction to the special issue. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.04.002
Eagly, A.H., & Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Kaplan, S. (2018). Gender and organization science: Introduction to a virtual special issue. Organization Science, 29(6), 1229–1236. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1249
Glass, C., & Cook, A. (2018). Do women leaders promote positive change? Analyzing the effect of gender on business practices and diversity initiatives. Human Resource Management, 57(4), 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21838
Heilman, M.E., & Caleo, S. (2018). Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 725–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218761587
Holtom, B.C., Goldberg, C.B., Allen, D.G., & Clark, M.A. (2017). How today’s shocks predict tomorrow’s leaving. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9438-9
Hom, P.W., Lee, T.W., Shaw, J.D., & Hausknecht, J.P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103
Houldsworth, E., Jones, K., McBain, R., & Brewster, C. (2023). Career capital and the MBA: How gender capital supports career capital development. Studies in Higher Education, 48(2), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2134333
Ibarra, H., Carter, N.M., & Silva, C. (2010). Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review, 88(9), 80–85, 126.
Just Share. (2025). Women in leadership: Assessing gender equality in JSE top 40 boards and C-suites. Author.
Kaliannan, M., Darmalinggam, D., Dorasamy, M., & Abraham, M. (2023). Inclusive talent development as a key talent management approach: A systematic literature review. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), 100926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100926
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.
Kim, J.Y., & Meister, A. (2023). Microaggressions, interrupted: The experience and effects of gender microaggressions for women in STEM. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(3), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05203-0
Kirsch, A. (2018). The gender composition of corporate boards: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.06.001
Lee, J., & Shin, H. (2024). Effects of inclusive leadership on the diversity climate and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 14(6), 491. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14060491
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Mahabeer, P., & Naidoo, R. (2023). Black women executives and intersectional leadership in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 49, a2031.
Morgenroth, T., Kirby, T.A., Ryan, M.K., & Sudkämper, A. (2020). The who, when, and why of the glass cliff phenomenon: A meta-analysis of appointments to precarious leadership positions. Psychological Bulletin, 146(9), 797–829. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000234
Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L., & Feldman, D.C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x
Nishii, L.H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823
Nishii, L.H., & Leroy, H. (2022). A multi-level framework of inclusive leadership in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 47(4), 683–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221111505
Peltokorpi, V., & Allen, D.G. (2024). Job embeddedness and voluntary turnover in the face of job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(3), 416–433. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2728
Qu, S.Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070
Randel, A.E., Galvin, B.M., Shore, L.M., Ehrhart, K.H., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
Ryan, M.K., & Haslam, S.A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x
Schwartz, R., Williams, M.F., & Feldman, M.D. (2023). Does sponsorship promote equity in career advancement in academic medicine? A scoping review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 39(3), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08542-4
Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2020). Women on corporate boards. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 35(6), 499–516.
Shore, L.M., & Chung, B.G. (2024). Inclusion as a multi-level concept. Current Opinion in Psychology, 60, 101910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101910
Shore, L.M., Cleveland, J.N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003
Smith, J.A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage Publications.
Smith, J.A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2021). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
Tremmel, M., & Wahl, I. (2023). Gender stereotypes in leadership: Analyzing the content and evaluation of stereotypes about typical, male, and female leaders. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1034258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1034258
Wohlgezogen, F. (2024). Career capital and purpose. Journal of Management Inquiry, 33(1), 75–89.
| 
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
