Navigating Gender, Safety, and Identity in Leadership Development: A Theoretical Reflection on a Women-Only Program Facilitated by a Male Lecturer

Introduction

Women-only leadership programs have gained traction globally as institutions seek to address the persistent underrepresentation of women in senior leadership roles. These programs often mirror the content of mixed-gender executive courses but differ significantly in structure, facilitation, and participant dynamics. This article reflects on a South African women-only leadership course through the eyes of its male facilitator and applies three relevant theories—Social Identity Theory, Psychological Safety, and Role Theory—to explore its dynamics. Drawing from classroom observations and participant feedback, this article examines how identity, inclusion, and perceived legitimacy influence the program’s outcomes and challenges.

Social Identity Theory: Understanding Group Cohesion and Expression

Developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, Social Identity Theory (SIT) posits that people derive part of their self-concept from group memberships, which influence behavior and intergroup relations¹. In the context of the women-only leadership course, the participants shared a salient identity as professional women navigating male-dominated industries. This shared identity provided a foundation for solidarity, emotional resonance, and collective insight that are not always possible in mixed-gender settings.

Many participants explicitly stated that they felt more “seen,” more “heard,” and more “free” in the women-only space. One mid-level manager admitted, “I wouldn't have shared that story if there were men in the room.” Such reflections suggest that the women-only cohort enabled ingroup dynamics where members reinforced each other’s experiences, validating common challenges like workplace marginalization or imposter syndrome. SIT explains how group homogeneity in terms of gender can facilitate not only emotional safety but also identity affirmation, which are both essential for transformational learning.

However, this also raises questions about ingroup-outgroup contrasts: Does empowering women in isolation risk reinforcing a sense of otherness when they return to their male-dominated work environments? Social Identity Theory would suggest that without structural changes in the workplace, re-entry into mixed-gender leadership contexts might trigger identity conflict or role tension. The experience in the program becomes a psychologically rewarding—but socially distinct—bubble.

Psychological Safety: A Catalyst for Learning and Risk-Taking

The concept of Psychological Safety, introduced by Amy Edmondson, refers to an individual's perception of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context². It is a cornerstone of high-performing teams and effective learning environments. The women-only program created a context where participants experienced low levels of judgment, particularly on personal leadership dilemmas and gender-specific workplace challenges.

This safety allowed participants to challenge assumptions, share vulnerable stories, and role-play scenarios with confidence. For example, several women said they had never previously spoken publicly in a workshop setting, yet by the final module were delivering persuasive case presentations. Such behavioral shifts indicate that the absence of traditional social threats (such as male-dominated authority or unconscious bias) may enhance cognitive and emotional engagement in learning.

Furthermore, the facilitator observed a broadening of participation—not only from confident extroverts but also from typically reticent delegates. Psychological safety enabled by group composition explains why the course produced more equal participation and visible skill development. However, the theory also raises a caution: if psychological safety is exclusive to the classroom, participants may struggle to sustain their confidence in less safe organizational cultures. This suggests the importance of designing follow-up structures (e.g., mentoring, sponsorship, advocacy training) to scaffold transitions back into reality.

Role Theory: The Male Facilitator in a Gendered Space

Role Theory suggests that individuals occupy social positions defined by expectations, norms, and scripts. These roles often create tension when a person’s identity or presence contradicts the implicit norms of the space³. As the only man in a women-only program, the facilitator experienced both role ambiguity and role strain. While his pedagogical role was to teach and guide, his gender marked him as an outlier in a space designed for female empowerment.

To mitigate this, the facilitator opened the session by addressing his presence directly—disarming potential skepticism and positioning himself as a supportive ally rather than an authority. This transparency helped defuse tension and established a tone of mutual respect. His consistent efforts to validate women's voices and step back when needed reflected adaptive role behavior, where he adjusted his behavior in line with perceived group needs.

However, the role tension was not eliminated. A few participants expressed ambivalence: “It’s great to have a man who gets it,” one said, “but it also made me realize that we still need men to validate our progress.” This reveals a paradox: the facilitator’s presence helped legitimize the space, but also reinforced the power asymmetries the program aimed to transcend.

Role Theory thus highlights the double-bind faced by male allies in gendered empowerment spaces. They are both necessary and problematic. Their participation can model allyship and influence, yet may also re-inscribe gendered norms. For organizations designing women-only programs, this theory recommends greater intentionality in selecting and preparing facilitators to navigate such tensions with awareness and humility.

Conclusion

The women-only leadership program in this case study succeeded in creating an affirming, high-trust learning environment for its participants. Theoretical insights from Social Identity Theory, Psychological Safety, and Role Theory enrich our understanding of why the program was effective—and where its limitations lie. For participants, shared identity and psychological safety catalyzed learning and self-confidence. For the male facilitator, his presence required careful navigation of implicit social roles and expectations.

However, this analysis also underscores an important caution: such programs must not become isolated interventions. Without broader workplace transformation and ally engagement, women-only spaces risk becoming “empowerment islands” disconnected from organizational currents. Theory reminds us that leadership is relational and systemic, not merely individual. Future designs should thus blend the safe space of gender-specific training with deliberate re-integration strategies and male allyship models, ensuring that what is gained in the classroom can be sustained in the boardroom.

References

1. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.

2. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

3. Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92.