Women Leaders in the Strategic Positions of Pharmaceutical Companies: Overcoming Barriers and Systemic Biases

Nyeleti Mayimele, Nsovo Article — Published Version Women Leaders in the Strategic Positions of Pharmaceutical Companies: Overcoming Barriers and Systemic Biases Business Ethics and Leadership Suggested Citation: Nyeleti Mayimele, Nsovo (2025) : Women Leaders in the Strategic Positions of Pharmaceutical Companies: Overcoming Barriers and Systemic Biases, Business Ethics and Leadership, ISSN 2520-6311, Academic Research and Publishing U.G., Hamburg, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, pp. 65-78, https://doi.org/10.61093/bel.9(1).65-78.2025 , https://armgpublishing.com/journals/bel/volume-9-issue-1/article-5/ This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320345 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode Business Ethics and Leadership, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2025 ISSN (online) – 2520-6311; ISSN (print) – 2520-6761 65 Women Leaders in the Strategic Positions of Pharmaceutical Companies: Overcoming Barriers and Systemic Biases Nsovo Nyeleti Mayimele, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2861-4955 Ph.D., Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa Corresponding author: Nsovo Nyeleti Mayimele, Mayimele[email protected]c.za Type of manuscript: research paper Abstract: The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, emphasising the importance of ensuring full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public. The representation of women in leadership positions serves as a measure of gender equality. Empowering women in leadership facilitates inclusive economic growth and allows organisations to have a diversified talent pool. Women continue to be significantly underrepresented in strategic leadership roles within manufacturing pharmaceutical companies (MPCs) operating in South Africa, despite ongoing efforts to promote gender equity. This study aimed to assess the presence of women in board and executive leadership positions and propose strategies to promote gender-inclusive leadership. A systematic desktop review was conducted to analyse the websites and annual reports of 49 publicly listed MPCs that were selected from the South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC) 2021 register. The data were collected on company characteristics, leadership composition, gender distribution and professional qualifications of leaders within each company. The results revealed that women comprised only 29.48% of board members and 27.36% of executive leaders, with female pharmacists representing just 28.1% of leadership positions. Statistical analysis, including Chi-square tests, confirmed a gender disparity, with men significantly more likely to occupy strategic roles. The findings highlighted barriers such as unconscious bias, exclusion from influential networks, limited mentorship and sponsorship opportunities and challenges related to work-life balance. The study concludes that addressing these disparities requires a comprehensive approach, including structured sponsorship programs, gender-inclusive leadership policies, targeted talent development initiatives and corporate accountability measures. By implementing these strategies, pharmaceutical companies can create a more equitable leadership environment for women to enhance decision-making, innovation and long-term sustainability of the pharmaceutical industry. Keywords: gender bias, mentorship, pharmaceutical industry, sponsorship, strategic leadership, South Africa, women in leadership. JEL Classification: J16, I11, L65, P46. Received: 21 November 2024 Accepted: 31 January 2025 Published: 31 March 2025 Funding: There is no funding for this research. Publisher: Academic Research and Publishing UG (i.G.) (Germany). Founder: Academic Research and Publishing UG (i.G.) (Germany). Cite as: Mayimele, N. N. (2025). Women Leaders in the Strategic Positions of Pharmaceutical Companies: Overcoming Barriers and Systemic Biases. Business Ethics and Leadership, 9(1), 65‒78. http://doi.org/10.61093/bel.9(1).65‒78.2025. Copyright: © 2025 by the author. Licensee: Academic Research and Publishing UG (i.G.) (Germany). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Business Ethics and Leadership, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2025 ISSN (online) – 2520-6311; ISSN (print) – 2520-6761 66 INTRODUCTION The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, emphasising the importance of ensuring full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life (Eden & Wagstaff, 2021; Merma-Molina et al., 2024). In the corporate sector, the representation of women in leadership positions serves as a key measure of gender equality. Increasing the involvement of women in strategic decision-making has been found to enhance innovation and diversity and contributes to sustainable development and long-term business success. Empowering women in leadership facilitates inclusive economic growth and allows organisations to leverage broader perspectives, skills, and talents (Fernández et al., 2021). Despite the progress made in gender diversity, women remain underrepresented in executive and strategic leadership roles within many industries, including the pharmaceutical sector. Organisations must recognize the value of female leaders and actively dismantle barriers that hinder their advancement (Martins, 2020; Keane et al., 2021). Addressing gender disparities in leadership requires targeted policies, corporate commitment and ongoing evaluation of diversity initiatives. Understanding the current status of women in leadership roles within the pharmaceutical industry in South Africa is necessary for identifying gaps and promoting equitable representation. The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by a complex network of external stakeholders, each with distinct interests and agendas influencing corporate strategy (Chimonas et al., 2021; Samiolo & Mehrpouya, 2021). The strategic direction and priorities in South Africa must align with global industry standards and local regulatory, economic, and social contexts. In this environment, integrating women into strategic leadership is not only an issue of representation but also a key component of effective corporate governance and business sustainability. This will create legitimate strategies that incorporate the representation of women in manufacturing pharmaceutical companies (MPCs), as it is essential for achieving meaningful gender equality within the South African pharmaceutical industry. There is evidence that companies led by visible female CEOs or senior executives often pursue a different strategic direction compared to those led by men (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Lewellyn & Muller-Kahle, 2022). While international research suggests that the leadership styles of women and men are largely similar, significant differences emerge in the strategic contexts in which they operate. A manuscript by Cook and Glass (2013) presents a compelling exploration of the systemic barriers that prevent women from attaining and retaining top leadership roles in large organisations. The authors identify key institutional-level factors such as board diversity, the glass cliff phenomenon, and the savior effect, which shape women’s career trajectories in executive leadership. Based on a 20-year dataset of Fortune 500 CEO transitions, their findings reveal that increased gender diversity among decision-makers significantly boosts the likelihood of women’s promotion to and longevity in leadership roles. This challenges the notion that women are only appointed during periods of crisis (Cook & Glass, 2013). This analysis aligns closely with global data. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), women comprise approximately 70% of the global health and social care workforce but only around 25% of senior leadership positions (WHO, 2019). This discrepancy is not unique to healthcare; it mirrors trends across sectors where women’s contributions are substantial, yet leadership remains male-dominated. The WHO emphasises that addressing gender disparities in leadership is a matter of equity and a strategic necessity for health system resilience and inclusivity. Similarly, research from the World Bank highlights that organisations with diverse leadership teams demonstrate higher financial returns, better innovation, and stronger governance. This finding reinforces Cook and Glass’s argument that gender diversity in decision-making bodies can dismantle homosocial reproduction, i.e., the tendency of male-dominated boards to perpetuate male leadership. By integrating women into boardrooms, organisations can facilitate equitable career mobility and enhance their strategic capacity to navigate complex challenges (Boniol et al., 2019). Women in Global Health (WGH) has been at the forefront of advocating for structural reforms to close this leadership gap. Their initiatives focus on policy advocacy, mentorship programs, and institutional accountability to ensure women have the necessary support to rise through organisational hierarchies. WGH’s work echoes the manuscript’s findings that representation matters. Women leaders are more likely to thrive in environments where they are not isolated tokens but part of a broader culture of inclusion. The rejection of the glass cliff hypothesis, i.e., the idea that women are disproportionately appointed to failing firms, contributed to the contemporary debates. While experimental studies have demonstrated that women are sometimes seen as better suited to crisis management due to stereotypical traits like empathy and collaboration, the real-world data analysed by Cook and Glass suggests that firm performance is not the Business Ethics and Leadership, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2025 ISSN (online) – 2520-6311; ISSN (print) – 2520-6761 67 primary determinant of women’s promotions. Instead, board composition emerges as the pivotal factor, reinforcing global calls for gender-balanced leadership as a catalyst for sustainable organisational success. Cook and Glass’s work provides empirical evidence that institutional diversity is a powerful lever for gender equity in leadership. When contextualised within global efforts to dismantle structural barriers as championed by WHO, the World Bank, and WGH, the finding of the research by CooK and Glass (2013) indicates the urgent need for systemic interventions (Cook & Glass, 2013; Abdulrahman & Amoush, 2020; Samimi et al., 2022). By promoting gender diversity at the highest levels of decision-making, organisations can not only bridge the leadership gap but also unlock the full potential of their workforce, driving progress toward more equitable and effective systems worldwide. For gender equality in South Africa to be effective, it is essential to understand strategic leaders’ behaviours and decision-making processes. Identifying the presence of women in the leadership of MPCs that have operations in South Africa, although they may be headquartered globally, was the primary aim of this study. In addition, an exploration of the determinants and barriers to entry into these positions was done. LITERATURE REVIEW The pharmaceutical industry operates in a dynamic system that is influenced by various external stakeholders, including regulatory bodies, investors, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and consumers, each with their own interests and strategic priorities (Chimonas et al., 2021; Samiolo & Mehrpouya, 2021). The corporate strategy in this sector is shaped by these external pressures that necessitate leadership that can navigate industry-specific challenges and broader socio-economic factors. An important aspect of corporate strategy involves aligning leadership structures with industry demands. Strategic leadership theories emphasise the importance of diverse leadership teams in driving organisational success, particularly in industries that require innovation, compliance with regulatory frameworks, and corporate social responsibility (Abdulrahman & Amoush, 2020; Samimi et al., 2022). This study examines the decisions and experiences of women in pharmaceutical strategic leadership, addressing such questions as: Are women present in leadership positions? What motivations and challenges have influenced their leadership trajectories? What barriers affect their entry into the positions? Additionally, the study explores the structural and cultural factors within pharmaceutical organisations that either support or hinder female leadership advancement. Women in Strategic Leadership: Global and South African Perspectives Globally, women remain underrepresented in executive leadership within the pharmaceutical industry, with significant disparities in senior management and board positions. Studies show that women hold approximately 18% of executive leadership roles and only 9% of CEO and General Manager positions within the global pharmaceutical sector (Smith & Sinkford, 2022; Goryunova & Madsen, 2024). While the industry has made progress in increasing gender diversity, women remain disproportionately concentrated in support functions such as human resources and administration rather than core operational or research and development (R&D) roles, which are typically the pathways to executive leadership. In South Africa, the situation mirrors global trends. The country has made progress in promoting gender diversity in corporate governance; however, women remain under-represented in strategic decision-making roles. South African corporate boards, including those in the pharmaceutical and life sciences sectors, are predominantly male-dominated, with women often occupying non-executive roles rather than key operational leadership positions (Chijoke-Mgbame et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020). Furthermore, research highlights a persistent gender pay gap within the pharmaceutical industry, with women in executive roles earning significantly less than their male counterparts (Ogunnowo, 2022). Comparative analyses of board diversity across African economies reveal that South Africa ranks relatively well in terms of female board representation. However, within the pharmaceutical sector, female participation remains lower than in other industries (Cicchiello et al., 2021; Nel et al., 2022). According to a KPMG report on gender diversity, South Africa’s pharmaceutical industry lags behind other sectors in achieving equitable representation at executive levels. This is consistent with findings that while women are well-represented in managerial positions, they are less likely to ascend to strategic leadership roles that influence corporate decision-making and policy formulation (Nguyen et al., 2020; Uyar et al., 2021). The Influence of Women in Strategic Leadership There is growing evidence that companies led by female CEOs or senior executives tend to adopt different strategic approaches compared to those led by male counterparts (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Lewellyn & Muller-Kahle, 2022). Female executives often prioritise stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility, ethical governance, and long-term sustainability over short-term profit maximisation. This Business Ethics and Leadership, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2025 ISSN (online) – 2520-6311; ISSN (print) – 2520-6761 68 difference in strategic orientation suggests that increasing gender diversity at the executive level could lead to more balanced decision-making and improved corporate performance. However, studies indicate that the leadership styles of men and women in executive roles exhibit minimal differences. Instead, the variations lie in the strategic context, including the environment in which female leaders operate (Dwivedi et al., 2021). Women often face unique challenges, such as structural biases, limited access to leadership networks, and expectations regarding work-life balance, which influence their strategic decision-making. Addressing these barriers is essential for promoting a more inclusive leadership pipeline within the pharmaceutical industry. The Need for Gender-Inclusive Strategic Leadership in South Africa For the South African pharmaceutical industry to achieve sustainable transformation, it is essential to understand female executives’ leadership behaviours and decision-making processes. Identifying the factors that shape their leadership practices can inform policies promoting gender-inclusive leadership (Abdulrahman and Amoush, 2020; Samimi et al., 2022). Furthermore, organisations must actively create environments that support the advancement of women into strategic leadership roles. This includes implementing mentorship programs and corporate policies that facilitate career growth while addressing gender-specific challenges. Ensuring that leadership teams reflect gender diversity can enhance corporate innovation and drive long-term industry success. This literature review highlights the persistent under-representation of women in strategic leadership within the pharmaceutical industry and other industries, both globally and in South Africa. While progress has been made in increasing gender diversity, significant barriers remain, including structural inequalities, leadership biases, and limited career progression opportunities for women. Understanding the strategic leadership experiences of female executives in the South African pharmaceutical industry is essential for cultivating a more inclusive leadership model. METHODOLOGY The data collection process involved systematic online searches using Google® to locate the official websites and annual reports of the selected MPCs. These documents were carefully examined to extract relevant information regarding the professional backgrounds and gender composition of individuals in strategic leadership positions. Data was systematically recorded using a structured collection form and subsequently transferred to an Excel® spreadsheet for further analysis. The collected data included details such as the company name, country of listing, the primary function of the MPC, company size (based on revenue and several employees), composition of board leadership and executive management, gender distribution within strategic leadership roles, and the professional qualifications of leadership personnel. This study was conducted over three months as part of a broader research project investigating the presence of pharmacists in strategic leadership roles within MPCs operating in South Africa. This paper aimed to assess the representation of women in executive positions and examine their professional backgrounds within publicly listed MPCs. A comprehensive list of MPCs operating in South Africa was sourced from the South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC) 2021 register for medicine manufacturers, which initially identified 264 MPCs. To enhance accuracy, the list was carefully reviewed to eliminate duplications and errors, as some companies were listed multiple times or had separately registered subsidiaries. The final study population was refined to 254 MPCs following this validation process. From this validated list, a search was conducted to identify companies that publicly traded shares on stock exchanges. This criterion was essential to ensure access to publicly available data on leadership structures, as required for stock exchange listings. Ultimately, 49 MPCs met this criterion, with shares traded on stock exchanges both in South Africa and internationally. A sample size calculator (Naing et al., 2006) was used to determine the minimum required sample size while maintaining statistical validity. The calculated minimum sample size was 44 MPCs, ensuring a 95% confidence level with a ±5% margin of error. Data Collection and Analysis Various fields were established to categorise the professional backgrounds of individuals in leadership positions. The commerce category included professionals with backgrounds in finance, accounting, and economics, while the management category encompassed individuals with degrees in management sciences, such as marketing and business administration. Those holding an MBA as a secondary qualification were classified based on their foundational degrees rather than being placed in the management category. The engineering category comprised professionals in industrial, mechanical, electrical, and other engineering disciplines. The law category included individuals with legal qualifications or degrees within the legal Business Ethics and Leadership, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2025 ISSN (online) – 2520-6311; ISSN (print) – 2520-6761 69 fraternity. The medical category encompassed professionals registered under the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), including medical practitioners, nurses, and physiotherapists, but excluded psychologists. The pharmacy category consisted of individuals with qualifications such as a Bachelor of Pharmacy, Doctor of Pharmacy, or pharmaceutical sciences degrees, which allow for professional registration as pharmacists. Additionally, the sciences category included professionals with qualifications in foundational sciences such as chemistry and physiology, while the social sciences category covered fields like psychology and political sciences. Finally, “another” category was designated for qualifications outside the predefined fields, including theology, archaeology and informatics. An essential component of the study was analysing female representation in leadership roles. This involved identifying the gender distribution of leadership positions, evaluating the professional qualifications of female leaders, studying the representation of female pharmacists in executive roles, and recording additional qualifications held by women in leadership positions. By adopting this approach, the study ensured a comprehensive assessment of the presence and professional backgrounds of women in strategic leadership within South Africa’s manufacturing pharmaceutical sector. The study employed a combination of descriptive and inferential statistical analyses to examine the distribution of companies across different continents and the representation of female pharmacists in leadership roles within these organisations. A descriptive analysis was conducted to summarise companies’ frequency and percentage distribution by country and continent. The data on pharmacists’ gender distribution was analysed to assess disparities in leadership positions. To examine the significance of gender disparities in leadership positions, a Chi-square test for independence was performed to determine if gender and hierarchical position (pharmacist, executive, board) were significantly associated. The test assessed whether women were underrepresented in higher positions beyond random variation. Additionally, a comparative analysis was conducted using a one-way ANOVA (or Kruskal-Wallis test, depending on normality assumptions) to compare the number of companies across continents. This test evaluated whether there were significant differences in company representation across Africa, America, Europe, and Asia. The choice between ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis depended on the normality of the data, determined through a Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance. RESULTS Country of Study The dataset presents the geographic distribution of 49 pharmaceutical companies included in the study, categorised by continent and country. The highest representation comes from America, with the United States of America accounting for 16 companies (32.7%), making it the dominant region. Europe follows with a total of 17 companies (34.7%), distributed across Denmark (4.1%), France (6.1%), Germany (4.1%), Ireland (2.0%), the United Kingdom (12.2%) and Switzerland (6.1%). Asia has 13 companies (26.5%), primarily from India (20.4%), with smaller contributions from China (2.0%) and Japan (4.1%). Africa has the lowest representation, with only 3 companies (6.1%) from South Africa (see Table 1). Table 1. Geographical Location of MPCs and Pharmacists in the Strategic Leadership of MPCs Continent Country Number of companies % Africa South Africa 3 6.1% America United States of America 16 32.7% Europe Denmark 2 4.1% France 3 6.1% Germany 2 4.1% Ireland 1 2.0% United Kingdom 6 12.2% Switzerland 3 6.1% Asia China 1 2.0% India 10 20.4% Japan 2 4.1% Total 49 100.0% Source: developed by the author based on Mayimele et al. (2023). The distribution of the companies across continents was analysed using a Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit test to assess whether the number of companies observed in each continent significantly deviated from an expected equal distribution. The results yielded a Chi-Square statistic of 10.02 with a p-value of 0.018, indicating that the distribution of companies across continents is statistically significantly different from an equal distribution. Business Ethics and Leadership, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2025 ISSN (online) – 2520-6311; ISSN (print) – 2520-6761 70 A Chi-Square Test for Independence was conducted further to explore the relationships between continent and company presence. The test resulted in a Chi-Square statistic of 0.00 with a p-value of 1.0, suggesting no significant association, likely due to the limited categorical structure of the dataset. Additionally, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the proportion of companies in each continent were calculated to estimate the variability (see Table 2). The confidence intervals for the proportion of companies per continent were as follows: Table 2. Confidence Intervals for the Proportion of Companies per Continent Continent Confidence interval Africa -0.59% to 12.84% America 19.52% to 45.78% Europe 21.37% to 48.02% Asia 14.17% to 38.89% Source: developed by the author based on Mayimele et al. (2023). These confidence intervals suggest that while Africa has a lower representation in the dataset, America, Europe, and Asia have higher concentrations of pharmaceutical companies, with Europe displaying the widest range of potential representation. The presence of negative values in Africa’s confidence interval suggests that the lower bound is more theoretical than practical due to the small sample size. This distribution highlights a concentration of pharmaceutical companies in developed regions such as the United States, Europe, and India, with lower representation from Africa and parts of Asia. Presence of Women in Leadership Positions The analysis of gender representation in leadership roles revealed that the proportion of female board members is 29.48%, while female executive members constitute 27.36% of the total (see Figure 1). This suggests that women have a slightly higher representation at the board level compared to the executive level. The male-to-female ratio further illustrates this disparity. Among board members, there are approximately 2.39 men for every woman, whereas in executive positions, the ratio increases to 2.65:1, indicating a slightly larger gender gap in executive leadership roles. Figure 1. Gender Distribution for People in Strategic Positions of MPCs Source: developed by the author. To assess whether the gender distribution significantly differs between board and executive positions, a Chi-square test for independence was performed. The test yielded a chi-square statistic of 0.450 with a pvalue of 0.502. Since the p-value exceeds the 0.05 significance level, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, suggesting no statistically significant association between leadership level (board vs. executive) and gender distribution. Additionally, a two-tailed z-test for proportions was conducted to compare the proportion of female members in board and executive positions. The test produced a z-score of 0.741 with a p-value of 0.458. As the p-value is greater than 0.05, the results indicate no significant difference in the proportion of women between the two leadership roles. 050 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Male Female Unknown Executive member Board member Business Ethics and Leadership, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2025 ISSN (online) – 2520-6311; ISSN (print) – 2520-6761 71 A bar chart was created to illustrate these findings visually and represent gender distribution across leadership levels. The visualisation highlights that males dominate both board and executive positions, although the proportion of women is slightly higher at the board level. The “unknown” category in the chart accounts for individuals for whom gender data was unavailable. The Presence of Female Pharmacists in Leadership Positions The data highlights a gender disparity in leadership roles within pharmaceutical companies. Among the total 32 pharmacists, 23 (71.9%) are male, while 9 (28.1%) are female (see Figure 2). This trend continues in executive and board positions, where the number of female pharmacists remains significantly lower than their male counterparts. Figure 2. Gender Pharmacists in Strategic Positions of MPCs Source: developed by the author. Out of 17 executives, 13 (76.5%) are male, and 4 (23.5%) are female among the executive pharmacists. Among 15 board members, 11 (73.3%) are male, and 4 (26.7%) are female among the pharmacists at board level. These results indicate that as positions become more senior, the representation of female pharmacists remains consistently low compared to males (see Figure 2). This suggests potential barriers preventing women from advancing into executive and board-level positions. The data analysis examined the gender distribution of pharmacists in leadership positions within pharmaceutical companies. A Chi-square test for independence was conducted to determine whether there was a significant association between gender and leadership position. The test yielded a Chi-square statistic (χ²) of 0.1203 with two degrees of freedom and a p-value of 0.9416. Since the p-value is much greater than the conventional threshold of 0.05, it failed to reject the null hypothesis, indicating that the observed differences in gender representation across different roles are not statistically significant. This suggests that the distribution of males and females across pharmacist, executive, and board-level roles may be due to chance rather than a systemic pattern of gender-based disparities. The expected frequencies calculated for each category, i.e., pharmacists (Male: 23.5, Female: 8.5), executive pharmacists (Male: 12.48, Female: 4.52), and board pharmacists (Male: 11.02, Female: 3.98) were close to the observed values, reinforcing the chi-square findings. Proportional analysis revealed that males accounted for 71.9% of all pharmacists, 76.5% of executive pharmacists, and 73.3% of board pharmacists, while females made up 28.1%, 23.5%, and 26.7% of these categories, respectively. These proportions indicate a gender gap in leadership roles, with a decreasing trend in female representation at higher levels of leadership. To further explore the likelihood of men attaining leadership positions compared to women, odds ratios (ORs) were computed. The odds of a male pharmacist advancing to an executive position were 1.625 times higher than those of a female pharmacist, suggesting a moderate gender disparity at the executive level. Similarly, the odds of a male pharmacist being in a board-level position were 1.146 times higher than those of a female, indicating a slightly increased likelihood for men to hold board roles. While these odds ratios highlight gender differences in leadership, they are not overwhelmingly large, reinforcing the earlier finding that the association is not statistically significant. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Pharmacists Executive pharmacists Board pharmacists Male Female Business Ethics and Leadership, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2025 ISSN (online) – 2520-6311; ISSN (print) – 2520-6761 72 The results suggest that while males are numerically dominant in leadership roles within the pharmaceutical industry, the observed differences do not reach statistical significance. The modest odds ratios suggest a possible trend favouring male pharmacists for executive and board roles, warranting further investigation with a larger sample size to determine whether these patterns persist across broader datasets. The statistical tests suggest that while female representation in strategic leadership is low, there is no statistically significant difference in the proportion of women between board and executive roles. This indicates that gender disparity is a systemic issue across leadership levels rather than being specific to a particular role. Global Overview Globally, an increasing number of women are securing positions in senior and executive leadership roles and on the boards of major organisations (Abdulrahman & Amoush, 2020; Auriol et al., 2022). Women are no longer confined to traditionally “female professions” but are making strides in industries previously dominated by men, including science, technology, engineering, and management. The pharmaceutical manufacturing sector, a historically male-dominated industry, is transforming. Major multinational pharmaceutical corporations are gradually incorporating more women into strategic decision-making roles (Bulmer et al., 2021; Sanad & Al-Sartawi, 2023). Despite this global shift, the results of this study indicate that in the manufacturing pharmaceutical sector, women remain significantly under-represented in leadership positions. The proportion of female board members is 29.48%, while the proportion of female executive members is 27.36%. Although board representation is slightly higher than executive-level representation, the male-to-female ratios of 2.39:1 at the board level and 2.65:1 at the executive level suggest that men continue to dominate strategic leadership roles. A Chi-square test for independence found no statistically significant difference in gender distribution between board and executive leadership (χ² = 0.450, p = 0.502), while a z-test comparing female representation at these levels (z = 0.741, p = 0.458) further confirmed the lack of significant variation. These results suggest that gender disparities exist at both levels relatively uniformly rather than being specific to a particular leadership tier. This finding aligns with global literature, which highlights ongoing challenges in achieving gender balance despite progress in workplace diversity initiatives. South African Context In South Africa, the under-representation of women in strategic leadership within multinational pharmaceutical companies reflects broader corporate landscape inequalities (Abdulrahman and Amoush, 2020; Samimi et al., 2022). While legislative frameworks such as the Employment Equity Act aim to promote gender diversity, the persistence of gender disparities at senior levels suggests that structural barriers remain. The South African pharmaceutical sector, much like its global counterpart, continues to grapple with entrenched gender imbalances, particularly in executive roles. The findings of this study indicate that although the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector in South Africa has made some progress, women remain a minority in leadership positions. The 27.36% female representation in executive leadership suggests that while strides have been made, gender parity is far from being achieved. Furthermore, the male-to-female ratio of 2.65:1 at the executive level highlights a more pronounced gender gap compared to the board level. These findings are concerning, given the growing body of research that underscores the benefits of gender-diverse leadership teams. Studies indicate that companies with excellent female representation in leadership roles exhibit improved governance, stronger financial performance, and enhanced decision-making processes (Seo et al., 2017; Loh et al., 2022). Additionally, research suggests that female leadership facilitates a more inclusive organisational climate, resulting in higher employee engagement and overall organisational effectiveness (Kim, 2022). Barriers and Challenges Faced by Women in Attaining Strategic Leadership Positions Research highlights that women aspiring for leadership positions often face workplace bias, limiting their ability to advance (Adams-Harmon and Greer-Williams, 2021; Mashele and Alagidede, 2022). Some companies exhibit discriminatory practices by questioning the commitment of female managers to leadership roles, thereby further reinforcing the “sticky floor” effect. One mitigating factor has been the implementation of leave policies post-childbirth, enabling women to return to their careers without long-term interruptions. However, while flexible work policies exist, their effectiveness in eliminating gender disparities remains limited.