Determining factors and alternatives for the career development of women executives: a multicriteria decision model

Significant socio-economic and technological changes have reshaped work–family relations, with women disproportionately affected by the work–family interface and facing a persistent glass ceiling—organizationally embedded, often invisible barriers that hinder advancement to senior roles. Prior research has catalogued barriers and facilitators and compared male–female leadership trajectories, but empirical examinations linking determinants of women’s career development to concrete career alternatives are scarce. This study addresses the research question: what are the determining factors in the career of women executives and how do they relate to the alternatives available to women in their managerial careers? The purpose is to enrich theory and provide empirical validation by assessing how personal, organizational, and social factors shape women executives’ career choices, thereby informing both scholarship on the glass ceiling and managerial practice.

Theoretical classifications of determinants of women’s career development include social, organizational, and individual contexts; positive versus negative impacts; and internal versus external factors. Building on Elacqua et al. (2009), the study adopts three groups: personal (family responsibility; education and development; internal personality factors such as self-esteem and confidence), organizational (leadership, organizational culture, organizational support including mentoring/coaching, and social/professional networks), and social (gender stereotypes; external social support; public policies and work–life balance). Career development alternatives derived from the literature include internal promotion, external promotion, entrepreneurship, salary raises, and abandonment; the study analyzes internal promotion, external promotion, and entrepreneurship (omitting abandonment and salary-only moves). Ten hypotheses link specific factors to alternatives: H1–H4 posit positive relationships between training and development, organizational culture, organizational support, networks and internal promotion; H5–H6 posit leadership positively and gender stereotypes negatively relate to external promotion; H7–H10 posit family responsibility, public policies and work–life balance, external social support, and internal personality positively relate to entrepreneurship.

Design: A multicriteria decision-aid (MCDA) approach (ELECTRE III, an outranking method for ranking problems) was used to rank career alternatives—internal promotion (IP), external promotion (EP), entrepreneurship (EN), and an 'other' option (OT: public employment or family business)—given a coherent family of 10 criteria (factors): internal personality (IF), family responsibility (FR), training and development (T&D), leadership (LD), organizational culture (OC), organizational support (OS), networking (NT), external social support (ES), gender stereotypes (GS), and public policy and work–life balance (PP). Data collection: Primary data via an online questionnaire of women executives in Madrid (Population 32,303; simple random sampling; n=236; sampling error 6.3%; January–March 2019). Respondents rated, on a 1–5 scale, how each factor affected each alternative. Median ratings formed the performance matrix. A subset of 25 respondents participated in in-depth interviews to enrich and explain quantitative findings. Sample characteristics (selected): Age at first managerial appointment: <30 (28.3%), 30–40 (56.6%), 40–50 (14.6%), >50 (0.4%); children: yes 72.6%; marital status: married/partner 73.7%; work hours: full-time 94.2%; role: executive 68.0%. Scenarios and weights: Respondents identified one of five scenarios reflecting priorities and provided 1–10 importance weights for the 10 factors in their scenario. Scenario counts: S1 Professional development (n=92), S2 Job stability (n=21), S3 Family (n=26), S4 Family & professional development (n=62), S5 Equality (n=35). Weighted averages per scenario yielded criterion weights. Five MCDA problems (one per scenario) were solved. ELECTRE III setup: Pairwise outranking relations computed using concordance/discordance logic. Given the rating scales, no indifference, preference, or veto thresholds were introduced; credibility indices equaled overall concordance. Rankings were obtained via top-down and bottom-up distillations; the final partial preorder is their intersection. Software: Diviz. Modeling stance: Constructivist; alternatives and criteria derived from literature; no assumed causal relationships.

Performance inputs: Median ratings by criterion for each alternative were computed from survey responses. Scenario-specific criterion weights were derived from respondents’ stated importance in their declared scenario. Rankings by scenario (ELECTRE III):

• Scenario 1 (Professional development; weights: IF10, FR10, T&D9, LD9, OC8, OS8, NT5, ES1, GS1, PP1): 1) EN, 2) OT, 3) EP, 4) IP.
• Scenario 2 (Job stability; IF10, FR10, T&D9, LD9, OC8, OS6, NT5, ES5, GS5, PP4): 1) OT, 2) EN, 3) EP, 4) IP.
• Scenario 3 (Family; IF10, FR9, T&D9, LD9, OC6, OS5, NT4, ES4, GS3, PP3): 1) OT, 2) EN, 3) EP, 4) IP.
• Scenario 4 (Family & professional development; IF10, FR10, T&D10, LD9, OC9, OS8, NT7, ES6, GS5, PP5): 1) EN/OT/EP (tied), 2) IP.
• Scenario 5 (Equality; IF10, FR10, T&D10, LD8, OC6, OS6, NT6, ES6, GS5, PP4): 1) EN/OT/EP (tied), 2) IP. Hypothesis testing (via scenarios where each factor had highest weight and corresponding rankings): H1–H4 (linking training & development, organizational culture, organizational support, networking to internal promotion) were not supported. H5–H10 were supported: leadership positively associated with external promotion; gender stereotypes negatively associated with external promotion; family responsibility, public policies/work–life balance, external social support, and internal personality positively associated with entrepreneurship. Across all scenarios, internal promotion was consistently the least-preferred option. Additional observed data point: only 36.2% of surveyed women reported having a mentor.

Findings indicate that women executives’ preferred career alternatives vary by personal, organizational, and social priority contexts, but internal promotion is consistently disfavored, addressing the research question by mapping which factors steer choices toward entrepreneurship, external promotion, or other options. Contrary to much theory, training and development, organizational culture, organizational support, and networking did not translate into a preference for internal promotion; explanations include patriarchal organizational cultures, persistence of presenteeism, limited visibility due to family responsibilities, opaque promotion processes, and historically male-dominated networks. Supported hypotheses align with the literature: leadership strengths and alignment with contemporary soft-skill demands support external promotion; gender stereotypes impede external promotion; family responsibilities and insufficient work–life policies channel women toward entrepreneurship; external support and personality factors (self-confidence and agency) further encourage entrepreneurship. The divergence between theoretical expectations and empirical rankings underscores the enduring barriers within organizations and highlights women’s tendency to pursue agency-driven pathways (entrepreneurship or moving organizations) rather than rely on internal promotion mechanisms.

The study empirically links determinants of women executives’ career development to concrete development alternatives using multicriteria decision modeling. Across five scenarios, internal promotion was never the top choice; entrepreneurship and external moves predominated, with ties among EN/EP/OT in scenarios emphasizing balance and equality. Contributions include: enriching glass ceiling theory by specifying factor–alternative links; introducing ELECTRE III to gender-in-management research; and offering actionable insights for organizations to redesign cultures, supports, and policies to make internal promotion viable and equitable for women. Practice implications include strengthening mentoring and transparent promotion processes, addressing presenteeism, and implementing effective work–life policies. Future research should examine spatial/country differences in factor–alternative relations and incorporate outcome variables (e.g., job satisfaction, well-being, innovation, organizational performance) to assess consequences of the glass ceiling and different career pathways.

The analysis does not assume causal relationships between factors and alternatives. The study focuses on Spanish women executives in Madrid (n=236), which may limit generalizability. Alternatives analyzed exclude abandonment and salary-only increases. The performance matrix uses self-reported ratings and median aggregation; ELECTRE III was applied without indifference, preference, or veto thresholds due to scale considerations. The 'other' alternative aggregates distinct paths (public employment and family business).