Convergences and divergences in women’s and men’s leadership experiences during a prolonged crisis
| Experiential domain | Convergence: Shared leadership experience | Divergence: Women leaders | Divergence: Men leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Responsibility burden | Both women and men experienced heightened responsibility for employee well-being and operational continuity during the prolonged crisis | Responsibility experienced as relational accountability for others’ emotional and personal welfare among some women | Responsibility experienced as custodianship over systems, operations and task delivery among some men |
| Emotional regulation | Both groups reported regulating emotions to maintain stability and confidence for their teams | Emotional regulation involved sustained attentiveness to others’ feelings and relational cues among some women | Emotional regulation involved emotional restraint and minimising visible affect among some men |
| Authority enactment | Authority intensified during the crisis and was closely scrutinised | Authority was experienced as contingent and requiring ongoing relational negotiation among some women | Authority was experienced as assumed and maintained through decisiveness and emotional control among some men |
| Boundary management | Both groups struggled with the erosion of work–life boundaries under prolonged crisis conditions | Boundaries were more permeable, with difficulty disengaging from others’ distress among some women | Boundaries were more rigid, achieved through emotional distancing and role separation among some men |
| Leadership isolation | Both women and men experienced isolation in leadership roles | Isolation took a social form, emerging from overextension in care and support among some women | Isolation took an emotional form, characterised by silent endurance and withholding among some men |
| Adaptation over time | Both groups adapted leadership practices as crisis conditions persisted | Adaptation involved reflective sensemaking and re-evaluation of leadership identity among some women | Adaptation focused on instrumental problem-solving and restoring operational control among some men |
| Orientation to exit | Both groups contemplated the sustainability of leadership roles under prolonged strain | Exit was imagined as quiet withdrawal or role redefinition among some women | Exit deferred through endurance, with strain often unacknowledged among some men |
| Experiential domain | Convergence: Shared leadership experience | Divergence: Women leaders | Divergence: Men leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Responsibility burden | Both women and men experienced heightened responsibility for employee well-being and operational continuity during the prolonged crisis | Responsibility experienced as relational accountability for others’ emotional and personal welfare among some women | Responsibility experienced as custodianship over systems, operations and task delivery among some men |
| Emotional regulation | Both groups reported regulating emotions to maintain stability and confidence for their teams | Emotional regulation involved sustained attentiveness to others’ feelings and relational cues among some women | Emotional regulation involved emotional restraint and minimising visible affect among some men |
| Authority enactment | Authority intensified during the crisis and was closely scrutinised | Authority was experienced as contingent and requiring ongoing relational negotiation among some women | Authority was experienced as assumed and maintained through decisiveness and emotional control among some men |
| Boundary management | Both groups struggled with the erosion of work–life boundaries under prolonged crisis conditions | Boundaries were more permeable, with difficulty disengaging from others’ distress among some women | Boundaries were more rigid, achieved through emotional distancing and role separation among some men |
| Leadership isolation | Both women and men experienced isolation in leadership roles | Isolation took a social form, emerging from overextension in care and support among some women | Isolation took an emotional form, characterised by silent endurance and withholding among some men |
| Adaptation over time | Both groups adapted leadership practices as crisis conditions persisted | Adaptation involved reflective sensemaking and re-evaluation of leadership identity among some women | Adaptation focused on instrumental problem-solving and restoring operational control among some men |
| Orientation to exit | Both groups contemplated the sustainability of leadership roles under prolonged strain | Exit was imagined as quiet withdrawal or role redefinition among some women | Exit deferred through endurance, with strain often unacknowledged among some men |
The divergences represent contextually situated tendencies within the 15-case IPA subsample and do not apply uniformly to all women or men participants
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.