Authentic Talent Development in Women Leaders Who Opted Out: Discovering Authenticity, Balance, and Challenge through the Kaleidoscope Career Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses a key issue regarding the impact on women's careers if they opt out. I do have some concerns.

• Further clarity is needed to explain why Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory was chosen. Line 259-260 makes reference to the focus on leadership behaviours which is helpful but doesn’t explain why the authors were particularly interested in this approach.
• Further explanation of the methodological advantages of using both the KCM and LPI – I wanted a deeper understanding of why you had chosen this research design. What additional insights were you seeking through the use of both?
• It’s unclear regarding why using the five exemplary leadership practices would be a proxy for women for staying in the workplace. They don’t address many of the reasons women leave or are forced to leave or take a career break due to caring commitments. Further explanation is needed.
• It would be useful to have the demographic variables by gender e.g. number of women and men at early career stage etc.
• The demographic variables (starting line 422) are binary and no discussion re the potential impact on results of such binary measures is provided e.g. race (1=white, 2 other). Ignores for example the impact of intersectionality which is important in this discussion of women’s careers.
• The way RQ 2 is expressed at 6.2 suggests a different emphasis than how it is expressed earlier in the paper – at 6.2 it is about authentic talent development for women at 5.1 it’s about return to work after opting out. Greater alignment needed.
• 2 The difference between the group of 8 women and the group of 15 women isn’t clearly explained nor why the different data gathering approaches were used.
• What is the definition of high achieving in the context of this study? – Professional is defined in line 262 but not high achieving.
• Section 7.1 has an undertone of a ‘fix the women’ approach which I find of concern. The authors suggest that the aim is to provide advice to organisations but comments such as in 008 “Women who re-enter the workforce could be trained to respect . . . suggests that it is the women who need fixing rather than a change in organisational mindset and practices.
• The list starting at 059 could be condensed and the authors could reflect more on how these suggestions from other research align with their research.
• Further link back to social ascription processes in the discussion and conclusion is needed – there is quite a long discussion at the beginning of the paper as a way to frame the issues being examined but it is not picked up sufficiently later in the paper.
• I have not been able to make any comment on the figures or tables as these were not included with the draft manuscript

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you for reviewing the paper and for your excellent comments. Below are the responses to your points. Also attached is the document with the same responses. 

Point 1: Further clarity is needed to explain why Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory was chosen. Line 259-260 makes reference to the focus on leadership behaviours which is helpful but doesn’t explain why the authors were particularly interested in this approach.

Response 1: 

Thank you for reading the paper with great detail, as we have worked hard on this paper. We appreciate your response so we can further strengthen the paper. We chose this paradigm as it is more practical and action driven than others and we have greater familiarity with this model. There have been many critiques of leadership assessments (see Jack E. Edwards, Laura G. Rode & Roya Ayman (1989) The Construct Validity of Scales from four Leadership Questionnaires, The Journal of General Psychology, 116:2, 171-181, DOI: 10.1080/00221309.1989.9711121) so we chose something well researched over decades that was inspirational and motivational. We expected the inspirational aspects of the K&P model would correlate to the KCM parameters, as the KCM examines a person’s need for authenticity, balance, and challenge, and the K&P Practices focus on Challenging, Inspiring, Enabling, Modeling, and Encouraging, each of which had potential to correlate with the KCM parameters. 

Point 2: Further explanation of the methodological advantages of using both the KCM and LPI – I wanted a deeper understanding of why you had chosen this research design. What additional insights were you seeking through the use of both?

Response 2: 

According to Debebe (2017), the “joy of fulfillment leaders derive from discovering and developing talent may inspire others.” In our revisions, we expanded on this concept to the paper. Methodolologically, we were hoping to understand if there was a correlation between strong leadership practices and the KCM parameters. While the K&P exemplary leadership practices have been widely studied, there is a dearth of research that examines gender issues.  Research on the KCM has shown different gender related patterns based on career stages. If a correlation was found, we thought that we could suggest an interesting angle; that workers who have strong leadership practices and responsibilities thereof  may be more motivated to stay in the workplace rather than opt-out.

Point 3: It’s unclear regarding why using the five exemplary leadership practices would be a proxy for women for staying in the workplace. They don’t address many of the reasons women leave or are forced to leave or take a career break due to caring commitments. Further explanation is needed.

Response 3: 

Yes, and that is why we followed up with Study 2, to more closely examine the reasons why women were opting out, and why they were opting out. The KCM addresses the parameters of authenticity, balance, challenge as key career motivators. Leadership practices should correlate with challenge (they did). We do not have data from the first study as to who opted out and who stayed in, unfortunately, as we knew that we would complete a second study on the qualitative viccisitudes of opting out and opting back into the workforce to enrich this study.

Point 4: It would be useful to have the demographic variables by gender e.g. number of women and men at early career stage etc.

Response 4:

We apologize for leaving this out. The paper had grown so long.  But here is this full table of demographics in the attachment. This is also added into the back of the paper as well. Now, all of the tables, figures, and appendices are in the back of the paper. We did not ask for career stage info. We now include some additional information in Study 1 to answer this question. 

Point 5: The demographic variables (starting line 422) are binary and no discussion re the potential impact on results of such binary measures is provided e.g. race (1=white, 2 other). Ignores for example the impact of intersectionality which is important in this discussion of women’s careers.

Response 5: 

You are right. This data was collected as part of a survey marketing panel that did not, at that time, include points of intersectionality.   Participants were indeed forced into binary categories. In the updated Discussion, we offer a statement along these lines.

Point 6: The way RQ 2 is expressed at 6.2 suggests a different emphasis than how it is expressed earlier in the paper – at 6.2 it is about authentic talent development for women at 5.1 it’s about return to work after opting out. Greater alignment needed.

Response 6: 

Listed in 5.1, Research Question #2 states: “Can practices for authentic talent development be discerned from the parameters of authenticity, balance and challenge for women who have opted out but wish to return to the workforce as leaders?” Underneath, in 5.2, the sub-questions concerning the opting out and opting in process including experiences that led to opting out, experiences while opted out, experiences when they return to the workplace after opting out, how the KCM parameters factors into career re-entry, and the kinds of career and personal shocks professional women experienced. These sub-themes further add to the overarching Research Question #2 and as these practices relate to authentic talent development. This is again addressed in 6.2. Study 2, incorporating how the returning to work after opting out subtheme relates to the broader research question. These sub-themes are again addressed in 6.2.4 Findings, as they relate to the broader Research Question #2.  

Point 7: The difference between the group of 8 women and the group of 15 women isn’t clearly explained nor why the different data gathering approaches were used.

Response 7: 

The original group of 8 women were included as a way to unearth and address a deep dive into the career histories of these women. While great insights illuminated the qualitative work, we wanted to explore further the career shocks and discrimination aspects more deeply to get a handle on social ascription processes keeping women out of firms and finding alternate paths to balance. The first qualitative study grounded us in what we must ask the women of the second study, and allowed us to pinpoint career shocks and re-entry issues. 

Point 8: What is the definition of high achieving in the context of this study? – Professional is defined in line 262 but not high achieving.

Response 8: 

“High Achieving” is based on Pamela Stone’s research and includes” women who are highly educated, previously worked as professionals or managers, and able to be financially supported at home (Stone, 2007).  This has been added to both the 6. Method section as well as 6.2.1 Research Sample and Interview Administration, which is the section that defines the criteria.

Point 9: Section 7.1 has an undertone of a ‘fix the women’ approach which I find of concern. The authors suggest that the aim is to provide advice to organisations but comments such as in 008 “Women who re-enter the workforce could be trained to respect . . . suggests that it is the women who need fixing rather than a change in organisational mindset and practices.

Response 9: 

Thank you for catching this! No, this is not about “fixing the women”!. Our Discussion has been rewritten and now addresses the specific ideas that corporations must execute so that women are not “blamed.” We emphasize that “Women are leaders” and showcase strong leadership potential, as exemplified in both the quantitative and qualitative studies in this research. 

Point 10: The list starting at 059 could be condensed and the authors could reflect more on how these suggestions from other research align with their research.

Response 10: 

One of the authors has worked as a training and development manager and consultant for international corporations.  Our new list is defined by both her relevant work experience in the field, as well as scholarly research.

Point 11: Further link back to social ascription processes in the discussion and conclusion is needed – there is quite a long discussion at the beginning of the paper as a way to frame the issues being examined but it is not picked up sufficiently later in the paper.

Response 11: 

Yes, good point, thank you. We were so focused on explaining the results that we neglected to tie the Discussion back to the central point of social ascription processes.  This has since been rewritten; thank you.

Point 12: I have not been able to make any comment on the figures or tables as these were not included with the draft manuscript

Response 12: 

We apologize that the tables and figures were not included in the original submission somehow. We include all figures and tables in this submission at the back so you can read through them more easily rather than trusting the submission system. Thank you for all of your thorough comments and insight. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This work is important and relevant to contemporary times, especially considering the impact of COVID on women's careers.  The introduction is as educational as it is effective in providing background on need for such work and the tools used in the study. Methods are clearly written and appropriate to the design of the project. 

The text of the results is well written. However, the figure was not included in the manuscript so I am unable to comment on that. 

In contrast to the introduction and results, I found the discussion a bit challenging. Some of the statements seem redundant: e.g. multiple statements that women have strong leadership abilities, repetition of information already offered in the manuscript.  I would like to see the implications of the findings and discussion presented more clearly. As written, sometimes the important implication appears at the end of a paragraph and sometimes in the middle; never are they collected into an easily visible list that matches recommendations for organizations. Rather, another author's ideas for change are highlighted, to the detriment of the authors' work.  I was surprised that the author's recommendations addressed only on-boarding issues, almost like a "rescue" of talent. In light of the developmental trends in the literature and the study, I would expect some sort of discussion as to how organizations might anticipate leaves off absence as normal for staff, resulting in some sort of anticipatory planning for extended time out as well as for those returning to the out of home work force. 

 One specific suggestion to open the paper (lines 26-31):  The very first sentence is so long and complex it is off-putting. Not a good start for such an elegant piece of work. Suggest editing to something like "Social ascription processes differentially shape the internal and external conditions that influence sorting of individuals into roles and occupations. By reinforcing hierarchies based on race, gender, and other social identify groups, social ascription processes sustain power relations."  

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you for your valuable insight and comments. Please see our responses below to your points, and thank you. 

Point 1: This work is important and relevant to contemporary times, especially considering the impact of COVID on women's careers.  The introduction is as educational as it is effective in providing background on need for such work and the tools used in the study. Methods are clearly written and appropriate to the design of the project. 

Response 1: 

Thank you.  This work has taken a long time to produce, as we wanted to offer a quality piece of work. And we included different methods, both quantitative and qualitative, to offer a more complete picture of women’s careers and the opting out process as well as opting back in.

Point 2: The text of the results is well written. However, the figure was not included in the manuscript so I am unable to comment on that. 

Response 2: 

We apologize that for whatever reason the figure was not included, nor the tables.  The figure shows what the reader needs to know, so it is very important.  All tables and figures, and appendices are now included at the back of the submission. 

Point 3: In contrast to the introduction and results, I found the discussion a bit challenging. Some of the statements seem redundant: e.g. multiple statements that women have strong leadership abilities, repetition of information already offered in the manuscript.  I would like to see the implications of the findings and discussion presented more clearly. As written, sometimes the important implication appears at the end of a paragraph and sometimes in the middle; never are they collected into an easily visible list that matches recommendations for organizations. Rather, another author's ideas for change are highlighted, to the detriment of the authors' work.  I was surprised that the author's recommendations addressed only on-boarding issues, almost like a "rescue" of talent. In light of the developmental trends in the literature and the study, I would expect some sort of discussion as to how organizations might anticipate leaves off absence as normal for staff, resulting in some sort of anticipatory planning for extended time out as well as for those returning to the out of home work force. 

Response 3: 

These are excellent points.  We have now re-written the Discussion to include more on social ascription processes and implications of the findings. And one of the authors has real world experience in training and development; her recommendations are now included rather than reflecting the statements of alternate authors. Yes, with Covid, it is a new world and your comments regarding anticipating leaves of absence as part of the new normal is important. We have also added additional recent sources related to women and covid. 

Point 4: One specific suggestion to open the paper (lines 26-31):  The very first sentence is so long and complex it is off-putting. Not a good start for such an elegant piece of work. Suggest editing to something like "Social ascription processes differentially shape the internal and external conditions that influence sorting of individuals into roles and occupations. By reinforcing hierarchies based on race, gender, and other social identify groups, social ascription processes sustain power relations."  

Response 4: 

Thank you for your compliment on our “elegant” piece of work! We are proud of what we have accomplished here. You are right that we need to edit that first opening of the paper. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all  the points made in the initial review