Leadership, Gender, and Organizational Change: Voices of Women Leaders in Greece

Abstract

Despite growing evidence that diverse leadership enhances decision-making and innovation, little is known about how gendered expectations and structural barriers intersect to shape women’s leadership experiences in Greece. This qualitative study draws on semi-structured interviews with sixteen (N = 16) senior women leaders across healthcare and other professional sectors. The data are analyzed using thematic analysis to explore how participants navigate stereotypes, microaggressions, and work–life integration challenges. Findings reveal a core mechanism of gendered constraint in which structural barriers and interpersonal dynamics shape leadership enactment. These dynamics are mitigated through strategies such as mentorship, boundary setting, and inclusive practices. A central contribution of the study is the proposed Leadership Recognition and Resilience (LRR) framework, which conceptualizes the dynamic interplay between leadership purpose, recognition, and gendered constraints and highlights how adaptive strategies sustain agency, well-being, and organizational influence. The study extends role-congruity theory by introducing the concept of a glass acknowledgment ceiling, a subtle form of gendered resistance that limits recognition and authority even after women attain leadership positions. These findings underscore the importance of systemic reforms, culturally sensitive leadership development, and supportive networks to sustain women’s leadership and advance genuine gender equity in organizational contexts.

1. Introduction

Women’s underrepresentation in leadership continues to be a pressing concern across sectors, despite mounting evidence of the benefits they bring to organizational life. Research consistently demonstrates that women leaders contribute unique perspectives that foster innovation, enhance decision-making, and create more collaborative and inclusive environments (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Cook & Glass, 2009, 2011, 2014; Wu et al., 2022). Although prior research has documented the benefits women bring to leadership, the ways in which structural, cultural, and interpersonal barriers intersect to shape women’s lived experiences in professional roles remain underexplored. Recent studies in male-dominated industries demonstrate that women face deeply embedded gender norms, limited access to networks, and constrained career pathways, even in organizations that actively promote inclusivity (Figueredo & Cavazotte, 2023; O’Brien et al., 2023; Liem, 2025).

Classic metaphors such as the “glass ceiling,” “leaky pipeline,” and “labyrinth” continue to describe structural and cumulative barriers that restrict women’s career advancement, including stereotypes linking leadership with masculinity, family responsibilities, and limited mentorship opportunities (Morrison, 1992; Helfat et al., 2006; Eagly & Carli, 2007). Cross-national studies illustrate these dynamics. For example, in Indonesia’s construction industry, nearly 80% of women exit the workforce after marriage without targeted organizational and spousal support (Liem, 2025), while in Vietnam’s technology and manufacturing sectors, family support, mentorship, and adaptation skills are critical to sustaining leadership pathways (Thaiduong, 2025). However, these concepts do not fully capture the context-specific ways women experience leadership.

The health sector illustrates these challenges acutely. Despite comprising approximately 75% of the global health workforce, women remain drastically underrepresented in senior leadership positions (Javadi et al., 2016). Qualitative studies of women in medicine and academic medicine reveal how family responsibilities, institutional bureaucracy, and gendered expectations shape career choices and trajectories. Many leaders describe the pressure of balancing caregiving with professional demands while simultaneously navigating environments where they are often “the only woman in the room” (Salas-Lopez et al., 2011). Such experiences underscore how leadership remains situated within male-dominated organizational cultures, where women must continuously prove themselves as “exceptional” to gain legitimacy. Similar patterns have been observed in other male-dominated contexts, where women leaders must demonstrate “exceptional” performance to gain legitimacy and often rely on hybrid management styles—agentic yet collaborative—that enhance organizational outcomes while challenging gendered expectations (Larsson & Alvinius, 2020; Figueredo & Cavazotte, 2023).

Barriers are not experienced uniformly. Intersectional perspectives reveal that women of color often face more substantial obstacles to advancement than white women, including fewer benefactors, limited access to mentorship, and heightened perceptions of discrimination (Key et al., 2012). Implicit bias operates as a subtle but powerful force, framing women as natural followers rather than leaders, influencing societal perceptions and women’s own self-concept (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Ibarra et al., 2013). Such dynamics contribute to persistent gender pay inequities and reinforce structural and psychological barriers, including discriminatory organizational cultures, lack of flexibility, and internalized self-doubt, despite formal diversity initiatives (Galsanjigmed & Sekiguchi, 2023).

Even for women who overcome these barriers and attain senior positions, leadership is often marked by precarious conditions. Women are more likely to be appointed to high-risk roles with limited support, sometimes referred to as the “glass cliff”, and frequently experience shorter tenures than male peers (Glass & Cook, 2016). These patterns reflect organizational ambivalence: while women are increasingly visible in leadership, they are often positioned in ways that make success more difficult to achieve and sustain. Comparative evidence highlights that these precarious conditions cut across industries and geographies. Women in Australia, Indonesia, and Vietnam describe navigating contradictory expectations, unstable career pathways, and organizational cultures resistant to change, even where equality policies formally exist (O’Brien et al., 2023; Liem, 2025; Thaiduong, 2025). These findings underscore the urgent need to examine not only how women access leadership roles but also how they experience and sustain them in practice.

The Greek Context

The challenges faced by women in leadership are particularly pronounced in Greece. According to the European Institute for Gender Equality, Greece ranks last among EU member states on the Gender Equality Index (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2019), with notable declines over the last decade specifically in the domains of women’s economic participation, decision-making power, and social influence. In contrast, Greece performs relatively better in domains such as health and educational attainment, indicating that the overall low ranking reflects particular structural and institutional barriers rather than uniform gender inequality across all sectors. Despite legal reforms recognizing women’s rights—from electoral enfranchisement in 1952 to constitutional commitments to gender equality in 1975—progress in leadership representation and career advancement remains limited (Kapotas, 2009). While women’s labor market participation has steadily increased since the 1980s, persistent gaps remain in senior leadership positions, career progression, and economic decision-making power (Kapotas, 2009; Van Belle, 2016).

These inequalities are especially visible in the healthcare sector, where women represent 41% of the medical workforce but occupy only around 11% of academic professorships (OECD, 2017; Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2018). Survey data suggest that women professionals in Greek healthcare identify stereotypes, work–life balance challenges, lack of equal advancement opportunities, limited confidence, and gender bias as the most significant barriers to assuming leadership roles (Kalaitzi et al., 2019). Such barriers not only discourage women from pursuing senior positions but also limit the potential for inclusive organizational cultures and diverse leadership in medical institutions.

The broader socio-cultural context further amplifies these challenges. Family remains a highly idealized institution in Greece, with women continuing to bear disproportionate responsibility for childrearing, elder care, and domestic labor (Maridaki-Kassotaki, 2000; Mousourou, 2003). Even as men’s involvement in caregiving is gradually increasing, it is often framed as offering “help” rather than sharing responsibility (Maridaki-Kassotaki et al., 2017). Limited public childcare provision and scarce institutional support exacerbate this imbalance, pushing many women to curtail or abandon professional aspirations (Davaki, 2013; European Commission, 2018). The effects of structural discrimination are also evident in broader labor market participation. Comparative studies of Greece and the UK show significant gender differences in employment status, with evidence of systematic female employment discrimination in the Greek labor market (Livanos et al., 2009). Although female labor participation has risen since the 1980s, Greece still has the highest unemployment rates in the EU, with women disproportionately affected (Hellenic Statistical Authority, 2018; Plecher, 2020).

Research across professional domains demonstrates how these dynamics shape women’s experiences of leadership. In management, while the presence of women has increased since the early 1990s, attitudes toward women as leaders remain largely unchanged, with gender still subtly influencing perceptions of competence and leadership style (Galanaki et al., 2009). In advertising, senior women executives describe encountering the “motherhood penalty,” exclusion from male-dominated networks, and a lack of solidarity among women peers (Miliopoulou & Kapareliotis, 2021). Many position themselves as exceptions to prevailing norms rather than as collective change agents, reinforcing gendered hierarchies and male dominance within the sector (Miliopoulou & Kapareliotis, 2021).

Taken together, these findings suggest that women leaders in Greece navigate a complex and intersecting set of institutional, cultural, and interpersonal barriers. While legislative reforms and increased female participation in the workforce signal incremental progress, the lived reality of women in professional and leadership roles reflects persistent structural inequities. Greece thus provides a critical context for examining how women construct meaning around leadership, negotiate gendered expectations, and build resilience within male-dominated environments. Despite extensive international research on gender and leadership, few studies have examined how women leaders in Greece interpret and navigate these barriers within their unique institutional and cultural context. Existing studies largely focus on structural inequalities and labor market trends, leaving a gap in understanding the subjective, lived experiences of women leaders. This study addresses this gap by exploring how women construct meaning around leadership, negotiate gendered expectations, and build resilience within male-dominated environments. The aim of this study is to explore the lived experiences of women leaders in Greece, focusing on two interrelated questions: how women perceive and construct meaning around their leadership roles, and how they navigate and respond to institutional, cultural, and interpersonal barriers. By centering the voices of women leaders, this study contributes theoretically by extending role-congruity theory to encompass recognition barriers and by developing a framework that conceptualizes the dynamic interplay between leadership purpose, recognition, and gendered constraints, empirically by providing qualitative insights into lived experiences in Greece and contextually by illuminating the socio-cultural and institutional factors shaping leadership trajectories.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Aim and Design

A qualitative research design was adopted, as it allows an in-depth examination of participants’ experiences, perceptions, and interpretations, providing nuanced insights into the complexities of leadership within gendered organizational contexts. Therefore, the qualitative design aimed to capture the complexity of women’s leadership experiences in their own words, as quantitative approaches would not have provided sufficient depth or sensitivity to context.

2.2. Participants and Recruitment

Purposive sampling was used to recruit women holding leadership positions across healthcare and other professional sectors in Greece. Participants were required to hold senior roles, defined as managerial positions or higher (manager, director, department head, senior manager, executive), with at least five years of leadership experience. Recruitment was conducted through professional networks, social media, and organizational contacts. The recruitment process sought diversity in sector, seniority, and organization size to ensure a representative spread of perspectives. Interested participants received detailed study information and provided written informed consent. The final sample size (N = 16) was guided by the principle of thematic sufficiency rather than strict numerical saturation. As analysis progressed, no substantially new codes or subthemes emerged after the fourteenth interview, suggesting that the data were sufficiently rich and diverse to address the research questions. Subsequent interviews served primarily to deepen and refine existing categories rather than to generate novel insights. This approach aligns with qualitative interpretive standards emphasizing analytic depth and contextual variation over exhaustive coverage (Braun & Clarke, 2021). The sampling strategy also ensured maximum variation, encompassing different sectors (healthcare, education, finance, civil service) and leadership levels (middle to senior executive), thereby enabling both cross-sectoral comparison and contextual nuance. Participant characteristics are summarized in

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

Participant ID	Age	Sector	Position	Years in Leadership	Highest Qualification	Organization Type	Organization Size
P1	34	Healthcare	Manager	5	MSc	Hospital	Medium
P2	42	Healthcare	Director	10	PhD	Hospital	Large
P3	38	Corporate	Senior Manager	7	MBA	Consulting	Medium
P4	45	Education	Department Head	12	MSc	University	Large
P5	37	Healthcare	Team Lead	6	MSc	Clinic	Small
P6	50	Corporate	Director	15	MBA	Technology	Large
P7	41	Healthcare	Manager	9	MSc	Hospital	Medium
P8	36	Education	Program Coordinator	5	MSc	University	Large
P9	39	Corporate	Senior Manager	8	MBA	Finance	Medium
P10	44	Healthcare	Director	13	PhD	Hospital	Large
P11	35	Education	Department Head	6	MSc	University	Large
P12	47	Corporate	Director	14	MBA	Technology	Large
P13	40	Healthcare	Manager	9	MSc	Clinic	Medium
P14	43	Education	Department Head	11	MSc	School	Medium
P15	38	Corporate	Senior Manager	7	MBA	Consulting	Medium
P16	46	Healthcare	Director	12	PhD	Hospital	Large

.

2.3. Data Collection

Data were collected through semi-structured, one-on-one interviews conducted online via a secure video conferencing platform between November 2024 and January 2025. Each interview lasted approximately 60 min. The semi-structured format allowed participants to describe their experiences while enabling the researchers to probe emerging topics. The interview guide was organized around four broad areas: leadership trajectories, gendered barriers, coping strategies, and future development opportunities. For example, participants were asked to describe their pathway into leadership and the factors that shaped it (“Can you tell me about how you first moved into a leadership role?”). To explore gendered dynamics, they were invited to reflect on challenges associated with their role (“What challenges have you faced in your leadership career that you feel were influenced by gender?”). Participants were also encouraged to share how they responded to these barriers (“How have you navigated organizational cultures or interpersonal dynamics that made your leadership more difficult?”) and to discuss the role of support systems in sustaining their careers (“What kinds of support—organizational, familial, or peer—have been most helpful for you?”). Finally, participants were asked to consider their leadership development and offer reflections for the future (“What advice would you give to younger women who aspire to leadership in your sector?”). This structure ensured that interviews addressed both individual experiences and broader organizational and cultural contexts, while also allowing participants to raise issues they considered most relevant. Interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent. Pseudonyms were used to maintain anonymity, and participants were reminded of their right to withdraw at any time. A summary of the interview guide themes and sample questions is provided in

Table 2. Interview Guide Themes and Sample Questions.

Theme	Focus	Sample Questions
Leadership Trajectories	Pathways into leadership and career development	- Can you tell me about how you first moved into a leadership role? - What factors or experiences most influenced your career progression? - How has your understanding of leadership evolved over time?
Gendered Barriers and Stereotypes	Experiences of bias, discrimination, and microaggressions	- What challenges have you faced in your leadership career that you feel were influenced by gender? - How do you think gender norms in your organization or sector shape leadership opportunities? - Have you encountered situations where you felt your authority or credibility was questioned? If yes, could you share your experience?
Coping and Resilience Strategies	Ways of navigating barriers, balancing roles, and sustaining motivation	- How have you navigated organizational cultures or interpersonal dynamics that made your leadership more difficult? - What strategies have helped you maintain resilience or confidence in your role? - How do you balance professional and personal responsibilities?
Support Systems and Mentorship	Role of networks, mentorship, and institutional support	- What kinds of support—organizational, familial, or peer—have been most helpful for you? - Have you received mentorship or provided it to others? - How could organizations better support women in leadership?

.

2.4. Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis was inductive in nature, allowing codes and themes to emerge from the data rather than being imposed a priori. In the initial phase, the first two authors read and re-read all transcripts to familiarize themselves with the data and conducted line-by-line coding to generate preliminary codes. NVivo was used to manage and organize the transcripts systematically, facilitating comparison across participants, storage of analytic memos, and detailed record-keeping. To enhance reliability, the first two authors independently coded all transcripts, while the third and fourth authors coded a subset (25%) to validate coding consistency. Inter-coder reliability was not statistically quantified (e.g., via kappa coefficient) because interpretive coherence rather than numerical agreement was prioritized, consistent with qualitative epistemology. However, consistency was ensured through detailed comparison of coding frameworks and iterative consensus discussions. Discrepancies—such as differences in how overlapping codes were applied or in the labeling of emergent categories—were resolved through iterative discussion until consensus was achieved. When agreement was not immediate, alternative interpretations were debated by the authors, and decisions were documented in coding memos to ensure transparency. Once initial codes were established, they were collated into broader categories, and recurring patterns were grouped into candidate themes. The research team engaged in constant comparison, examining similarities and differences across participants to refine categories as well as evaluating negative cases. Negative case analysis was used to test and refine emerging interpretations. For instance, one participant (P4) articulated a pragmatic, non-relational view of leadership that initially appeared inconsistent with the broader theme of ethical purpose. Examining such divergent accounts prompted the team to nuance the theme, recognizing that moral meaning-making coexisted with pragmatic adaptations shaped by organizational context. These counterexamples strengthened thematic robustness by ensuring that patterns reflected variation rather than consensus alone. Themes were reviewed for coherence, internal consistency, and distinctiveness, and refined iteratively through multiple rounds of team discussion. Representative quotes were then selected to illustrate participants’ experiences and to give voice to diverse perspectives.

Rigor, credibility, and trustworthiness were supported through investigator triangulation, peer debriefing, and reflexive practice. Multiple researchers independently coded transcripts and discussed interpretations to reach consensus. Detailed records of coding decisions, analytic memos, and field notes were maintained throughout the process to support dependability and confirmability. All four authors are women with experience in gender and organizational studies. This shared background fostered sensitivity to gendered dynamics but also required active reflection on how positionality shaped the research process. Reflexivity was practiced at multiple stages—during study design, data collection, coding, and interpretation. Each author maintained an individual reflexive journal to document assumptions, expectations, emotional responses, and evolving interpretations. These reflections were discussed regularly in team meetings to identify and mitigate potential biases, such as overemphasis on certain themes or interpretation through a predetermined lens. Reflexivity actively shaped interpretation throughout the analytic process. For example, in early coding rounds, we initially interpreted women’s “boundary-setting” narratives as expressions of individual coping. However, through reflexive discussion, we recognized how our own academic familiarity with resilience discourse had led us to overlook its collective dimension. Revisiting the data revealed that participants often framed boundary-setting as a relational act—protecting team integrity and fairness rather than merely personal balance. This shift informed our later framing of resilience as a collective rather than individual process.

We also reflected on how our professional and cultural backgrounds may have influenced participant interactions, particularly given the Greek context of the study. For example, our insider perspectives may have facilitated rapport and openness but could also have shaped the framing of questions or interpretation of nuanced responses. These dynamics were acknowledged through reflexive dialogue and by seeking alternative perspectives during analysis. Finally, to enhance trustworthiness, a summary of preliminary findings was shared with four participants, who confirmed that the themes resonated with their experiences and offered clarifications that were incorporated into the final analysis.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

The study received ethical approval from the University of Derby Research Ethics Committee (Approval Code: 100795977). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Pseudonyms and secure data storage were used to protect confidentiality. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any stage without consequence, and debriefing sessions were conducted to address any questions or concerns.

3. Results

Before presenting the findings, it is important to note that data validation was conducted through member checking. Four participants reviewed a summary of preliminary findings and confirmed that the themes captured their lived experiences, enhancing the credibility of the analysis. To aid interpretation, organizations represented in this study are broadly categorized as mature, less formal, and newer. Mature organizations refer to those established before 1990, typically public-sector or long-standing institutions characterized by hierarchical structures and formalized procedures. Less formal organizations include small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with flatter hierarchies and more flexible management styles. Newer organizations are those founded after 2010, often start-ups or private healthcare networks marked by greater structural adaptability and innovation-oriented cultures. These distinctions provide contextual depth when interpreting participants’ experiences of leadership within differing organizational environments.

The interviews illuminated how women leaders constructed meaning around their work, navigated the complexities of recognition and gendered expectations, negotiated structural barriers, and mobilized resilience in order to sustain their professional lives. The following sections present these themes (see Figure 1) as interwoven narratives, where women’s own words provide insight into the emotional and structural realities of leadership. A table with theme prevalence across participants is also included (see Appendix A).

• Leadership Purpose and Costs

For many participants, leadership was understood as deeply purposeful, anchored in impact rather than prestige, yet the meaning of this purpose varied across organizational contexts and individual trajectories. In healthcare, this was articulated as improving patient safety, in academia, fostering research innovation, and in corporate settings, delivering impact for teams and communities. This emphasis on relational and collective outcomes underscores a conception of leadership as stewardship rather than a pursuit of status. For some, this sense of purpose became a sustaining resource that imbued their work with personal meaning. Leaders with longer tenure, particularly those in established organizations, often described leadership as inseparable from their identity, portraying it as a “calling” and a source of fulfilment even amidst the pressures of senior roles. One senior healthcare director (P2) reflected: “This work is who I am—it gives my life meaning.”

Yet the depth of this commitment also carried a cost. Many women spoke of emotional exhaustion and blurred boundaries between professional duty and personal well-being. This was most pronounced among those working in high-pressure or resource-constrained contexts, such as start-ups or healthcare settings under strain. One senior manager (P9) shared: “I carry the weight of every decision home with me, and when something goes wrong, it doesn’t feel like a work problem—it feels like I’ve failed personally.” Others described the guilt that emerged when they tried to step back: “When I ignore an email at ten at night, I lie awake thinking—what if that was the one that mattered?” (P1).

The narrative of purpose therefore became both sustaining and consuming—a motivating force that blurred the boundary between identity and overinvestment. A mid-career leader (P12) in a corporate start-up explained “I feel I’m giving everything I have, and there’s nothing left for myself.” This dynamic was echoed across sectors, though its intensity varied. In healthcare and start-up environments, purpose was experienced as a moral and emotional commitment that exacted a personal toll. In contrast, leaders in more stable academic or public institutions framed purpose more pragmatically. As one long-tenure academic leader (P4) noted “Leadership is part of my professional agreement; it’s what the role requires rather than a moral mission.”

Across sectors, leadership purpose functioned as both an energizing and depleting force. In healthcare and start-up contexts, purpose was intertwined with personal identity and moral commitment, intensifying emotional investment and vulnerability to burnout. In contrast, leaders in more established academic or public institutions tended to frame purpose as professional duty rather than existential mission, reflecting how organizational maturity and stability mediate the personal costs of purpose-driven leadership.

• Recognition Dynamics: Visibility, Valuation, and Voice

Recognition emerged as a central dimension shaping women’s leadership experiences, operating at both interpersonal and structural levels. For many participants, everyday acknowledgment, whether a simple “thank you,” visible credit in meetings, or explicit naming of contributions, carried disproportionate importance for morale and motivation. As one mid-career healthcare leader (P13) explained, “It wasn’t the award that mattered, it was my boss saying in front of everyone: ‘This was her idea.’ That’s what kept me going.” Such moments of recognition were experienced as affirmation, validating not only the work itself but the leader’s presence and voice within the organization.

The absence of acknowledgment was felt acutely and described by several participants as a form of erasure. Contributions overlooked or reattributed to others produced a deep sense of invisibility. One manager (P3) in a male-dominated corporate environment reflected “I worked for months on restructuring the rota, and when it was announced, three men’s names were on the email. You feel like a ghost in your own work.” This language of invisibility signals more than individual oversight; it points to a patterned dynamic in which women’s labor is systematically undervalued. Such experiences were particularly salient in sectors where leadership cultures remained strongly masculine and competitive, including engineering and corporate leadership, where participants reported that their ideas were often dismissed unless echoed by men. As one mid-level corporate leader (P12) put it, “I’ll suggest something, and it just hangs there. Ten minutes later a male colleague reframes it, and suddenly it’s brilliant. It’s like my voice doesn’t carry the same weight.”

Even when recognition was granted, it was often partial or selective. Several participants described what one called a “glass acknowledgment ceiling”: being praised for relational and supportive qualities while their strategic contributions went underplayed. A senior academic (P8) noted “I’m always the one who ‘keeps the team together’, but when there’s a big transformation project, suddenly I’m not ‘strategic’ enough.” This pattern, consistent across sectors, reflects a gendered division of leadership labor in which relational work is visible and valued, but strategic work, the currency of leadership authority, is less readily recognized.

The form and visibility of recognition also varied according to organizational context. In mature organizations, including long-established academic institutions and large corporates, recognition was more often embedded in formal appraisal systems or structured leadership programs, providing consistent visibility for contributions. In contrast, leaders in newer or less formal organizations described recognition as relational and reliant on informal networks; while this could foster a sense of closeness, it also left recognition unpredictable and uneven. Negative cases further illuminate these dynamics. A small number of leaders in highly mature organizations—including long-tenure corporate directors and senior academics—described recognition as more equitable and systematic, facilitated by formalized leadership programs, transparent appraisal systems, and mentoring structures. As one senior academic (P14) reflected, “Recognition here isn’t about who shouts loudest; it’s built into the process. That makes all the difference.” These accounts suggest that institutionalized recognition structures can mitigate gendered patterns of acknowledgement.

Recognition operated as a crucial yet uneven source of validation across organizational settings. In mature institutions with formal appraisal systems, acknowledgment was more systematic and equitable, while in newer or less formal environments it depended on interpersonal visibility and informal networks. Across sectors, gendered dynamics persisted in how women’s contributions were recognized, with relational labor celebrated but strategic achievements often overlooked—reinforcing subtle hierarchies of value in leadership work.

• Gendered Constraints: Stereotypes and Structural Barriers

Gendered constraints emerged as a pervasive dimension shaping women’s leadership experiences, with stereotypes and structural barriers operating together to circumscribe how leadership was perceived and enacted. Many participants described navigating what has been characterized as the “double bind”—the narrow corridor between being assertive enough to lead and nurturing enough to be likable. As one mid-career corporate leader (P12) reflected, “If I push, I’m ‘abrasive’; if I hold back, I’m ‘too soft.’ It feels like you can’t win either way.” This tension was described across sectors, but its intensity varied by organizational context and career stage. Women in male-dominated sectors such as corporate consulting and technology reported heightened sensitivity to these stereotypes, describing a need for constant impression management to maintain credibility.

Subtle bias and microaggressions compounded these pressures. Across sectors, women recounted experiences of being mistaken for junior staff, having their contributions minimized, or being addressed informally while male peers received formal recognition. A healthcare manager (P1) described “I was leading the meeting, and someone asked me if I could fetch the coffee. I had to stop and say: I’m the chair, not the caterer. It’s exhausting having to correct people all the time.” This example, echoed by participants in corporate and educational settings, illustrates how bias operates through small, cumulative acts that undermine authority. For women in high-profile leadership positions—particularly directors in large organizations— these microaggressions were perceived as eroding authority in ways that required constant vigilance and correction.

Structural barriers added another layer of constraint. Organizational cultures that privilege long hours and inflexible schedules systematically disadvantage those with caregiving responsibilities. “All the big decisions get made at 7:30 a.m. or 6 p.m.,” observed one participant (P5). “If you’re doing the school run, you’re excluded by design.” Caregiving often stalled career progression, with some women being “protected” from senior roles after maternity leave. One director (P2) reflected “My manager said they didn’t put me forward because they wanted to protect my bandwidth. I didn’t need protection—I needed the opportunity.” This “language of protection” masks how organizational assumptions reproduce inequality.

For many, work–life integration was shaped by the “invisible second shift.” As one healthcare director (P16) put it, “I’m running a service and a household. Only one of those shows up on my CV.” This underscores how caregiving and leadership are deeply intertwined, constraining women’s opportunities on structural and cultural levels.

Negative cases nuance this picture. A small number of leaders in highly mature organizations, particularly those with formalized equality policies and leadership development programs, reported fewer experiences of stereotype-driven barriers, attributing this to structural supports that normalized equitable leadership practice. One corporate director (P12) explained that “There’s an expectation here that leadership is about capability, not gender. That changes everything.” These accounts suggest that structural maturity and institutional culture can mediate the influence of stereotypes, offering a pathway to reducing gendered constraints.

Gendered expectations and structural inequities intersected to shape how leadership was enacted across contexts. Women in male-dominated or high-intensity sectors faced heightened stereotype pressure and exclusionary norms around time and availability. However, leaders in organizations with strong equality frameworks reported greater latitude to define leadership on their own terms, illustrating the mitigating potential of institutional maturity and policy-driven cultural change.

• Strategies for Sustaining Leadership and Advancing Change

Despite the constraints, women described a repertoire of strategies for sustaining themselves and advancing their careers. Mentorship and sponsorship emerged as particularly vital. One participant reflected that “My mentor didn’t just advise me—she said my name in rooms I wasn’t in. That changed everything” (P6). For many women, mentorship provided not only practical guidance but also advocacy, helping to navigate structural barriers. Peer networks also functioned as spaces of solidarity, offering both advice and emotional support, and countering the isolation that can accompany leadership roles.

Boundary-setting was a deliberate practice reframed as a leadership strategy rather than a personal failing. A mid-career healthcare manager (P7) explained that “I started blocking out time in my diary as if it were a clinic. I tell my team it’s non-negotiable. That’s how we actually get the strategic work done.” Such deliberate structuring of time was described as essential to resisting the pull of constant firefighting and sustaining strategic focus.

Resisting gendered misrecognition was another common strategy. A mid-career corporate senior manager (P9) said “I’ve started saying, ‘Thanks for building on my earlier point’ when a man repeats my idea. It’s a subtle way to reclaim ownership.” Similar tactics were described across sectors, and most frequently by leaders with longer tenure, who had developed these as part of their leadership skillset. A senior academic leader (P4) noted “Navigating stereotypes has become part of my leadership skillset,” suggesting that experience provides important resources for managing gendered constraints.

This linguistic self-monitoring—the careful framing of language—was a form of strategic adaptation. A senior healthcare director (P10) explained that “I often phrase things as ‘maybe we could consider’ even when I know it’s the right decision. It’s not that I doubt myself—it’s that I know if I sound too certain, I’ll get labelled difficult.” Department heads in education described similar patterns of moderating their speech to maintain collegiality while safeguarding influence, illustrating how gendered expectations shape not only behavior but the texture of communication itself.

Transformational leadership practices emerged as a significant strategy for advancing change. Women described deliberately creating inclusive, psychologically safe spaces that encouraged collective ownership. One manager described that“In our team meetings, we rotate who leads agenda items. It gives quieter voices a platform and shows everyone can take ownership” (P3). Such micro-innovations demonstrate how women leaders not only cope with constraints but actively reimagine leadership in more equitable terms. These strategies reflect both individual agency and collective transformation, offering a model of leadership that sustains women in positions of influence while challenging the gendered and structural barriers that constrain their advancement.

Women leaders actively developed adaptive strategies that transformed constraint into agency. Mentorship, peer solidarity, boundary-setting, and linguistic reframing were key tools for resilience, while inclusive and transformational practices demonstrated how women not only survived but reshaped leadership cultures. These strategies varied across sectors but collectively highlight women’s capacity to sustain purpose, resist misrecognition, and enact incremental organizational change despite systemic barriers.

4. Discussion

This study set out to explore how women leaders in Greece experience and navigate institutional, cultural, and interpersonal barriers in leadership roles. Consistent with prior international research, participants described a web of structural inequalities, gendered stereotypes, and work–life pressures that shaped their professional trajectories (Acker, 1990; Morrison, 1992; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Mousourou, 2003; Helfat et al., 2006; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Dannels et al., 2009; Heilman, 2012; Maridaki-Kassotaki, 2000; Maridaki-Kassotaki et al., 2017; Davaki, 2013; European Commission, 2018; Kalaitzi et al., 2019; Manzi & Heilman, 2021). Our findings also contribute new insights into how Greek women leaders construct meaning around leadership, how recognition and invisibility shape their sense of legitimacy, and the ways they strategically reimagine leadership practices to foster resilience and collective advancement.

4.1. Meaningful Work as Both Resource and Risk

A key contribution of this study is the centrality of meaning ascribed to leadership. Whereas much of the literature emphasizes women’s struggles for access and advancement, our participants framed leadership as deeply purposeful and anchored in moral responsibility to patients, colleagues, and communities. This reflects principles of ethical leadership, which emphasize fairness, care, and accountability in guiding others (Santiago-Torner et al., 2025). It also resonates with broader debates about how leadership itself is conceptualized. Early definitions located leadership in power, inheritance, or control (Bass, 1990), later shifting to emphasize influence and authority over followers (Tannenbaum et al., 1961; Katz & Kahn, 1966). More contemporary perspectives, however, highlight leadership as the capacity to motivate, enable, and empower others toward collective goals (House, 2004). Importantly, this meaning-making dimension was especially salient in the Greek context, where leadership roles for women are often framed as exceptions rather than norms (Maridaki-Kassotaki et al., 2017). Greek socio-cultural factors intensify this dynamic. Leadership for women in Greece is shaped by historically masculinized institutions and strong family expectations (Maridaki-Kassotaki, 2000; Mousourou, 2003). Unlike some Northern or Western European contexts (Paugam, 2025), where dual-earner norms and institutional supports are more established, Greek women leaders face compounded pressures to align professional roles with familial obligations. This contributes to both a strong sense of purpose and heightened emotional vulnerability. As such, cultural context shapes not only barriers but also the ways in which leadership is valued and constructed.

At the same time, this orientation carried a significant emotional toll. Our data revealed that the merging of professional duty with personal identity often led to guilt, self-blame, and difficulty disengaging from work. This finding mirrors research on leadership vitality, which shows that constant emotional labor, self-control, and role isolation can drain leaders’ psychological resources (Shapiro, 2023) Leaders’ very commitment to care and responsibility, qualities often celebrated as markers of ethical leadership, can paradoxically heighten vulnerability to emotional exhaustion when expectations become unrelenting or when moral standards are internalized as personal obligations. Similar dynamics have been documented in studies showing that high moral intensity in leadership, while fostering trust, can also intensify follower demands and erode leaders’ own affective resilience (Santiago-Torner et al., 2024). Moral intensity in leadership refers to the degree to which leaders perceive ethical implications in their decisions and actions, influencing both how they prioritize stakeholder interests and how followers respond (Santiago-Torner et al., 2024). High moral intensity can increase leaders’ sense of responsibility but may also intensify stress when ethical obligations conflict with institutional constraints. In the Greek context, women leaders’ moral intensity was evident in their commitment to patient care and relational responsibility, but this heightened their emotional burden due to limited structural support and strong familial expectations.

For women leaders in particular, the emotional burden is compounded by gendered expectations. Prior research has highlighted how women’s socio-emotional competencies, such as empathy and relational awareness, can support transformational leadership (Lopez-Zafra et al., 2012). Yet these same competencies may also be stereotyped as weakness or become a source of overextension (Boyatzis & Saatcioglu, 2008). Women are often caught in the paradox of being praised for their relational capacities while simultaneously needing to prove strategic acumen to be seen as legitimate leaders. The result is that emotional commitment, while a critical resource, may also entrench cycles of overwork and self-doubt. Here, the Greek-specific context of collectivist familial obligations and limited institutional support exacerbates these pressures, highlighting that meaning-making is simultaneously a resource and a risk.

Taken together, our findings suggest that meaningful work functions as both a sustaining resource and a significant risk factor. It enables women to ground leadership in purpose and relational responsibility, but it also exposes them to heightened emotional demands, particularly in contexts where organizational cultures undervalue or fail to buffer such labor. Extending the idea of the “double bind,” our study highlights that women’s internalized sense of purpose can itself become a source of vulnerability, requiring not only individual resilience strategies but also structural recognition and redistribution of emotional labor within organizations.

4.2. Recognition, Visibility, and the “Glass Acknowledgment Ceiling”

Another novel theme was the pivotal role of recognition. While prior studies document women’s underrepresentation and the motherhood penalty (Heilman, 2012; Kalaitzi et al., 2019; Miliopoulou & Kapareliotis, 2021), our participants emphasized that everyday acknowledgment, or its absence, fundamentally shaped morale and legitimacy. Accounts of invisibility, misattribution, and the privileging of men’s voices resonate with research on implicit bias (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Ibarra et al., 2013), yet the identification of a “glass acknowledgment ceiling” refines these insights by highlighting not just access but the ongoing undervaluation of women’s contributions. Women were consistently praised for relational qualities while their strategic input was overlooked, reinforcing gendered divisions of leadership labor.

These findings align with emerging research on inclusive leadership, which emphasizes the importance of recognizing individual contributions, fostering belonging, and actively valuing diverse perspectives (Veli Korkmaz et al., 2022; Meng & Neill, 2021). Inclusive leaders not only support diversity structurally but also amplify recognition for underrepresented groups, increasing both morale and perceived legitimacy. Recent studies also suggest that even the “mere presence” of women in leadership can improve perceptions of fairness and trust within organizations, highlighting a relational and symbolic mechanism through which visibility impacts broader cultural norms (Joshi & Diekman, 2021).

Critically, in the Greek context, structural and cultural factors—such as masculinized leadership norms, hierarchical decision-making, and strong family expectations—constrain the full realization of recognition processes. While inclusive practices can foster acknowledgment, the persistence of informal gendered hierarchies may limit their effectiveness, meaning that women’s strategic contributions can remain invisible even when policies formally support equality. This underscores the importance of integrating inclusive leadership behaviors with context-sensitive strategies that explicitly address both relational recognition and structural power imbalances.

4.3. Navigating Gendered Stereotypes and Microaggressions

Participants’ accounts of the double bind and linguistic self-monitoring mirror global findings on women leaders’ constrained agency (Morrison, 1992; Ridgeway, 2001; Manzi & Heilman, 2021). Microaggressions, such as being mistaken for junior staff, asked to perform secretarial tasks, or denied authority in subtle ways, illustrate how gendered expectations operate through cumulative everyday interactions. Recent research indicates that female representation at higher organizational levels can shift both expectations and language around leadership. For example, appointing women to executive roles is associated with organizational language becoming more agentic without diminishing communal traits, helping to counteract the double bind and reinforce leadership legitimacy (Lawson et al., 2022). Similarly, inclusive leadership frameworks emphasize cultivating environments where belongingness, appreciation, and recognition mitigate the negative effects of implicit bias and stereotype threat (Veli Korkmaz et al., 2022; Meng & Neill, 2021).

In Greece, these dynamics are amplified. Leadership remains heavily masculinized, and women are often positioned as “exceptions” rather than normative leaders (Tannenbaum et al., 1961; Katz & Kahn, 1966; House, 2004). Strong family norms and hierarchical workplace structures increase the visibility gap and heighten the emotional labor required to contest bias. Some participants reported subtle resistance strategies, such as reclaiming authorship of ideas, reflecting agency in line with inclusive leadership principles; however, these acts require sustained vigilance and are contextually constrained by enduring cultural norms (Maridaki-Kassotaki, 2000). These findings suggest that increasing women’s visibility and recognition is not merely a question of numbers but also of embedding inclusive leadership behaviors that actively challenge stereotypes and create structural support for participation. In the Greek context, inclusive leadership could help transform both relational and organizational norms, but its effectiveness is mediated by entrenched socio-cultural barriers and institutional practices.

4.4. Structural Barriers and Work–Life Integration

The structural challenges identified in this study—such as rigid schedules, exclusionary decision-making practices, and the persistent “second shift”—align with prior work on the leaky pipeline and labyrinth metaphors (Helfat et al., 2006; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Dannels et al., 2009). Yet participants’ narratives also highlight the cultural specificity of these dynamics in Greece. For instance, exclusion from opportunities post-maternity leave was often framed as “protection,” reflecting organizational benevolence that masks systemic inequality. This mirrors the concept of benevolent sexism but has been underexplored in Greek healthcare and public service contexts.

Greek socio-cultural norms, including the centrality of family obligations and strong gendered expectations, exacerbate work–life imbalances (Maridaki-Kassotaki, 2000; Mousourou, 2003; Maridaki-Kassotaki et al., 2017). Recent survey research of 654 Greek women employees demonstrates that coping strategies, such as engaging in after-work learning or problem-solving activities, positively influence work–life balance (WLB) and overall quality of life, whereas avoidance or continuing work at home can conflict with socially prescribed domestic roles (Anastasopoulou et al., 2023).

The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted structural and cultural constraints on WLB globally and in Greece, emphasizing the intersection of paid and unpaid work, caregiving responsibilities, and gendered expectations (Sahni et al., 2025). Socio-ecological analyses reveal that disparities in WLB are not solely gender-based; they are shaped by multiple structural factors, including organizational norms, socio-economic status, and technological access. Policies supporting flexibility, financial assistance, and equity-based remote work can mitigate these structural barriers, but only when implemented in culturally and contextually sensitive ways.

Comparative international research also reinforces these patterns. For example, studies in India and other service sectors indicate that higher WLB correlates with job satisfaction, particularly when organizations actively support gender-inclusive policies and family care responsibilities (Shah et al., 2025). These findings suggest that while WLB is universally relevant, the Greek context amplifies structural and cultural challenges. Rigid hierarchies, limited institutional support for dual-career households, and strong expectations regarding family roles increase the burden on women leaders, highlighting the necessity of interventions that integrate structural, relational, and individual strategies.

Critically, these insights point to a need for inclusive leadership approaches in Greek organizations. Leaders who actively recognize employees’ non-work responsibilities, redistribute tasks equitably, and support flexible work arrangements can help mitigate both the emotional and structural costs of gendered WLB pressures. Without such context-sensitive leadership, even well-intentioned policies risk reproducing inequality, as culturally specific norms may override formal interventions. Integrating organizational, cultural, and individual factors into WLB strategies is therefore essential for promoting equity, retention, and well-being among women leaders in Greece.

4.5. Resilience and Transformational Practices

Despite structural and cultural barriers, participants described active strategies for sustaining themselves and reshaping organizational culture. Mentorship and sponsorship were repeatedly highlighted as pivotal, not only for career advancement but also for validating women’s leadership identities, findings that echo research with female school principals in South Africa, who emphasized the value of mentoring, leadership learning, and psychological preparation as sources of career and life resilience (Pillay, 2020). Our participants likewise framed resilience as a process of growth rather than mere endurance.

Alongside external support, participants identified internal practices that helped them remain effective in challenging contexts. Strategies such as reframing boundary-setting as a leadership tool and rotating agenda leadership to promote inclusivity illustrate how women leaders reimagine leadership itself. These accounts resonate with evidence from South African higher education, where positive affect and mindfulness were shown to significantly predict resilience among women leaders, with mindfulness also mediating the link between emotional positivity and adaptive capacity (Pillay, 2020). Similarly, conceptual work on women managers in SMEs suggests that resilience emerges not only from personal traits but also from active engagement with the work environment, career adaptability, and supportive organizational practices (Tabassum et al., 2019).

These findings indicate that women are not merely navigating the labyrinth of organizational obstacles but actively reconstructing its pathways. By embedding inclusivity, recognition, and care into everyday practices, they transform resilience from an individual coping mechanism into a collective and relational resource. This underscores the importance of framing women’s leadership not simply as resistance to barriers but as a generative force that reshapes organizational cultures toward greater equity.

These findings also resonate with contemporary discussions on relational, distributed, and post-heroic leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Grint, 2005). Women leaders in this study frequently leveraged mentorship, peer networks, and inclusive practices to sustain both personal and organizational effectiveness, reflecting a distributed approach to leadership in which influence is shared across formal and informal structures. Recognition dynamics revealed how relational leadership is simultaneously valued—through affirmation of collaborative and care-oriented practices—and devalued when strategic contributions remain uncredited or invisible. This tension highlights the complexity of post-heroic leadership: leadership effectiveness is no longer solely tied to individual authority or heroic traits but depends on relational skill, networked support, and context-sensitive strategies. Our findings suggest that while relational approaches can generate collective resilience and organizational transformation, they may also expose women leaders to heightened emotional labor and selective recognition, particularly in male-dominated or hierarchical contexts. By linking these dynamics to distributed leadership theory, the study clarifies why relational competencies are both essential and precarious in organizational environments where structural and cultural constraints persist.

4.6. Contribution of the Study

This study makes several key contributions to the understanding of women’s leadership, particularly in the Greek context, while offering insights applicable to broader organizational and cultural settings. In addressing the first research question, the study demonstrates that Greek women leaders construct leadership meaning through a combination of purpose-driven work, relational responsibility, and ethical commitment. These dimensions energize and motivate leaders, anchoring them in meaningful work, yet they also generate emotional strain and vulnerability. The contribution here lies not in establishing that leadership is meaningful—an idea well grounded in scholarship on calling and vocation—but in revealing how meaning-making itself can become a site of tension and vulnerability for women leaders operating within male-dominated and resource-constrained contexts. Leadership purpose thus emerges as a dual force: sustaining agency while simultaneously intensifying the moral and emotional costs of care-oriented leadership. Regarding the second research question, participants navigated structural, cultural, and interpersonal barriers through strategies such as reclaiming authorship, mentoring, boundary-setting, and reframing practices. These strategies illustrate the dynamic ways in which individual agency, relational resilience, and inclusive practices interact to mitigate systemic constraints, sustaining both well-being and leadership effectiveness.

A central theoretical contribution of this study is the introduction of a conceptual framework (see Figure 2) that depicts the dynamic interplay between leadership purpose, recognition, and gendered constraints, mediated by strategies that sustain agency and resilience. In this framework, recognition functions as both affirmation and validation, shaping morale, visibility, and self-concept. Its uneven distribution, shaped by organizational and gendered norms, can intensify feelings of invisibility or undervaluation. Gendered barriers—including stereotypes, microaggressions, and structural inequities—intersect with these dynamics, constraining authority, shaping communication styles, and limiting access to opportunities. Women’s adaptive strategies transform these constraints into actionable agency, fostering both personal sustainability and organizational change. This cyclical system emphasizes that leadership meaning, recognition, and barriers are not isolated factors but continuously interact, with strategies serving as mediating mechanisms that support both individual careers and broader organizational transformation.

This study extends existing frameworks such as role-congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) and visibility research (Ibarra et al., 2013) by introducing the concept of a “glass acknowledgment ceiling.” Whereas role-congruity theory predicts that women face prejudice when their leadership behaviors are perceived as incongruent with gender norms, and visibility research focuses on the challenges of being either hyper-visible or invisible in male-dominated environments, these frameworks largely explain barriers to access and perception. The “glass acknowledgment ceiling” advances this understanding by shifting attention from access to recognition—that is, how women’s achievements are credited, legitimized, and valued once they occupy leadership roles. This mechanism captures a subtler, post-attainment form of bias that existing theories overlook: women may achieve visibility and formal authority, yet remain symbolically undervalued or selectively acknowledged. The concept thus modifies role-congruity theory by revealing how congruity pressures persist after promotion, shaping recognition patterns rather than entry barriers, and extends visibility research by distinguishing between being seen and being credited. In doing so, it offers new explanatory power for understanding stalled gender progress within ostensibly meritocratic organizations. The findings also reframe the “double bind,” demonstrating how women’s moral and relational commitment to leadership can strengthen influence while simultaneously increasing emotional labor. Furthermore, the study reframes resilience as a collective and relational process rather than merely an individual trait. Women leaders leveraged mentorship, sponsorship, peer networks, and inclusive practices to sustain themselves and promote organizational change, highlighting how resilience emerges from the interaction of individual agency and supportive organizational structures.

In sum, this study contributes to theoretical debates on gendered recognition processes and leadership agency by linking macro-level structural constraints with micro-level strategies of meaning-making and resilience-building. By integrating leadership purpose, recognition, gendered barriers, and adaptive strategies into a coherent conceptual framework, the research illustrates that advancing women’s leadership requires both opening access to positions and reshaping how contributions are acknowledged, valued, and supported within organizations.

4.7. Implications for Practice and Policy

The findings have direct implications for leadership development and organizational policy, particularly in advancing United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDG 5) by promoting equitable access to leadership roles and fostering inclusive organizational cultures. First, training programs and leadership pipelines should more explicitly acknowledge the emotional weight and moral responsibility experienced by women leaders. Organizations should develop structured curricula that include emotional intelligence training, stress management techniques, and reflective leadership workshops tailored for women leaders. Initiatives that normalize boundary-setting and provide structured spaces for reflection may help women sustain their sense of purpose without becoming overextended. Beyond this, the broader literature on women’s leadership development highlights both the potential and the limitations of existing approaches. As the leadership development industry continues to grow, institutions offering programs tailored to women leaders are increasingly recognized as vital for fostering diverse and inclusive organizational cultures (Kassotakis, 2024). Women-only leadership development programs (WOLDPs) have been implemented in many organizations with the intention of addressing the gender leadership gap. While such initiatives can provide women with opportunities to clarify their leadership ambitions, recognize their strengths, and gain access to senior positions, scholars caution that these programs should not be treated as a substitute for deeper organizational change (Vinnicombe & Singh, 2003). Organizations should evaluate WOLDPs with measurable objectives and ensure alignment with broader diversity strategies to maximize their impact. Furthermore, they should complement broader strategies such as mentoring, coaching, and structural reforms that address persistent biases embedded in selection and promotion practices (Loumpourdi, 2023). Specifically, institutions should develop formal mentorship frameworks with clear expectations, timelines, and progress metrics, rather than relying on ad hoc arrangements. Mentorship and sponsorship should be institutionalized rather than left to chance. As our findings show, having advocates who publicly affirm women’s contributions can be transformative. Organizations can embed structured sponsorship schemes, including formal pairings between emerging leaders and senior allies, annual review of sponsorship impact, and public recognition of these relationships, to ensure women’s voices are amplified in key decision-making spaces.

Second, organizations must critically evaluate how recognition is distributed. Beyond formal awards or promotions, leaders should ensure that women’s strategic contributions are consistently credited, reducing the invisibility and selective acknowledgment that undermine authority. This could involve introducing transparent recognition processes, such as standardized feedback protocols and acknowledgment checklists in meetings and performance reviews. Awareness training for senior managers could help address unconscious bias in meetings, evaluations, and decision-making forums. Such training should include scenario-based workshops and periodic bias audits to ensure sustained impact.

Third, embedding the LRR framework in leadership development programs and organizational policy allows interventions to simultaneously address structural, relational, and personal dimensions of leadership, enhancing both individual and organizational outcomes. For example, initiatives can focus on ensuring women’s contributions are consistently acknowledged, cultivating supportive networks and mentorship structures, and connecting leadership roles to purpose and ethical responsibility. In the Greek context, where family obligations and institutional constraints intersect with gendered expectations, applying the LRR framework ensures that interventions are culturally sensitive while promoting systemic change, helping women sustain leadership engagement and influence within their organizations.

Finally, policies that support work–life integration remain crucial. Flexible scheduling, transparent criteria for promotion, and childcare supports would help mitigate structural exclusions that disproportionately impact women (Chung & van der Lippe, 2018; Maraziotis, 2024). Organizations should also consider introducing parental leave parity policies, caregiver support programs, and flexible career pathways that allow for re-entry after career breaks. In contexts such as Greece, where family responsibilities remain strongly gendered, organizational reforms could significantly influence women’s ability to advance into and sustain leadership roles. Pilot programs could be introduced in Greek organizations to evaluate the effectiveness of such policies, providing data for broader implementation.

Findings are contextually situated in Greece and should not be interpreted as universally generalizable. The sample was sector-skewed toward healthcare, drawn entirely from women who opted into interviews, and relies on self-reported experiences, which may underrepresent women less embedded in professional or peer-support networks. Although the study captured diverse perspectives in terms of sector and leadership level, it did not explicitly apply an intersectional lens to examine how age, class, ethnicity, or other identity dimensions may shape leadership experiences differently. This represents an important direction for future research, particularly in understanding how intersecting identities compound or mitigate gendered constraints. Moreover, thematic saturation was assessed retrospectively during coding review rather than prospectively during data collection, which may limit claims about the full comprehensiveness of the identified themes. Finally, there is a possibility of self-selection bias, as women who volunteered to participate may have been those more engaged with gender equity issues or more confident in sharing their experiences, while others with more negative or marginalized perspectives may have opted out. Future studies could adopt longitudinal and multi-method designs—combining observation, surveys, and experimental interventions—to explore leadership transitions over time and validate the LRR framework across broader and more intersectionally diverse populations. Comparative research in other Southern European contexts could further illuminate which barriers are culturally specific versus broadly shared across similar institutional landscapes, enhancing the cross-national applicability of the LRR framework and generating evidence-based recommendations for organizations committed to gender equity in leadership.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to explore how women leaders in Greece experience and navigate the institutional, cultural, and interpersonal barriers that shape their professional trajectories. The findings show that women’s leadership is marked by deep purpose and commitment but also by persistent struggles for recognition, the weight of gendered stereotypes, and structural constraints on work–life integration. At the same time, women demonstrated resilience and agency, advancing through mentorship, boundary-setting, and inclusive leadership practices that sought to transform their organizational environments. These findings matter because they shift the conversation about women’s leadership beyond access toward the quality of inclusion and recognition. They show that advancing gender equity requires addressing not only structural barriers but also the relational processes that shape leadership meaning, legitimacy, and resilience. By integrating the concept of the “glass acknowledgment ceiling” with role-congruity and visibility theories, this study offers a fresh theoretical lens for understanding how recognition operates as both a barrier and a resource, providing a foundation for more effective leadership development and organizational change strategies. Taken together, these insights underscore that gendered inequities in leadership cannot be addressed solely by individual strategies for resilience. Systemic reforms—at organizational and societal levels—are needed to create conditions in which women can not only access leadership but thrive within it.