Economic downturns present organizations with two competing challenges: maintaining financial stability and protecting brand presence. Budget and marketing management are key areas where executive leadership plays a vital role in determining short-term financial relief and long-term brand performance (Rego et al., 2022). However, relatively little is known about how the gender of a leader affects the combination of financial and marketing strategies during a crisis.

This study investigates whether and how gender differences in senior leadership (CEOs, CFOs, and CMOs) shape financial and marketing strategies to safeguard brand equity during crises. Using a mixed-methods explanatory design in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, this study addressed the following research questions:

Building on upper echelons theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984), we hypothesize that leader gender affects a firm’s strategic options and performance. Role congruity theory (Eagly and Karau, 2002) serves as a guideline for understanding gendered expectations around crisis leadership that are likely to impact decision-making and the response of stakeholders. Integrated with stakeholder theory (Freeman and Boeker, 1984) and brand equity theory (Keller, 1993). These models would lead us to expect that women leaders will place more importance on stakeholder trust and brand resilience than men, but that men are likely to emphasize financial prudence.

Upper Echelons Theory (UET) posits that organizational outcomes reflect the cognitive bases, values, and perceptions of top executives. Leaders interpret situations and make decisions through their personal experiences, demographic traits, and psychological dispositions. According to UET, during periods of turbulence such as economic crises, leaders’ individual characteristics, including gender play a heightened role because decision conditions are ambiguous and information is incomplete. Therefore, decisions surrounding marketing investment, communication tone, and austerity strategies are influenced by leaders’ values and cognitive framing. This theoretical lens directly links leadership gender to the dependent variable, brand equity resilience, by suggesting that gender-specific cognitive tendencies shape the strategic choices that protect or erode brand value under stress.

Two core theories, Upper Echelons Theory (UET) and Role Congruity Theory (RCT), provide an overarching framework for how leadership attributes influence crisis strategies and subsequent brand equity resilience. Upper Echelons Theory assumes organizational outcomes are a consequence of the cognitive foundations, values and perceptions of senior executives; leaders interpret situations and make decisions based upon their earlier experiences as well as demographic characteristics (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). In times of ambiguity and turbulence e.g., economic downturns UET suggests that at the extremes of strategic choices, executives’ observable characteristics (e.g., gender) are particularly important to forming strategic choice because they serve as a proxy for cognitive frames and preferences (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). As such, UET connects leader gender to brand equity resilience because of the possibility that gender differences in perception and prioritization will influence whether marketers choose (or how) they allocate marketing investment and tone cues in communication as well as whether managers decide on austerity measures all which directly affect the preservation of brand value during shocks.

Role congruity theory offers a useful demonstration of this as it explains how men and women (masculine or feminine) are expected to perform both as leaders and in terms of stakeholder perceptions. RCT posits that women tend to be stereotyped to possess communal qualities (e.g., empathic, relational-oriented) and is castigated from acting in ways incongruent with these traits, while men are typified as possessing agentic characteristics (e.g., assertive, in control) and is penalized for acting out of line of those norms when compared to their female counterparts when gendered behaviors are enacted by the same individual (Eagly and Karau, 2002). These role expectancies have the potential to render empathetic and transparency-oriented communication more acceptable and effective in a crisis, respectively for female leaders, lonely prompts as in such contexts they may also be overly penalized when adopting agentic or austerity orientations (Eagly and Karau, 2002). When teamed with UET, RCT thereby illuminates how leader gender influences brand equity resilience by specifying not only the mechanism (leaders’ cognitive frames inform strategy), but also the interpretive lens (stakeholders’ gendered expectations inform reactions) through which this influence is transmitted. In this sense, the two theories together provide a consistent structure: UET accounts for why leader gender is significant for strategic choice making (cognitive and value-based) while RCT explains how gendered behavior and perception can compromise the effectiveness of those choices in preserving brand equity during crises (Hambrick and Mason, 1984).

Leader gender and gender diversity have been treated as antecedents of strategic choice because the observable attributes associated with leaders can be construed as proxies for cognitive frames and values (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Gender socialization also influences preferences for risk, consideration of stakeholders, and prioritization within an organization (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Systematic gender differences in managers’ risk-taking have been documented in the literature. The evidence presented so far often suggests women to be more risk-averse, focused on stakeholders and tend to lead with a relational style, holding cues for different crisis responses than men (Jianakoplos and Bernasek, 1998; Post and Byron, 2015). Empirical evidence suggests that female CEOs are more likely to stress stakeholder trust and communication, along with applying conservative financial policies (Zenger and Folkman, 2020). But that is not the case for everyone. Some research indicates small or mixed effects (Smith, 2014), and still other research finds no gender differences in entrepreneurship once firm size, industry category, and ownership form are controlled for (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Second, women are more likely to be appointed or elevated in times of crisis (the so-called glass cliff), such that any causal analysis is further confounded by the fact that they may inherit more daunting circumstances than men who serve in similar positions (Ryan and Haslam, 2005). Thus, the gender of the leader and gender diversity are theoretically important yet empirically debatable predictors of crisis strategy.

Beyond the views of both sides already described, the general leadership literature has had a long history debating whether gender differences have significant organizational consequences. Differences in Leadership Behavior and Performance Other research supports differences between men’s and women’s leadership behavior as well as the performance of their firms. For instance, (Campbell and Mínguez-Vera, 2008) show that firms with boards composed of a more equal gender mix have better financial performance, which may indicate that women’s presence leads to better monitoring quality, lower agency problems and enhanced managerial decisions. Similarly, Fuentes Moraleda et al. (2014) found that: Female entrepreneurs in lodging display unique relational, service-oriented, communication-based leadership qualities that can be especially valuable during crises when interpersonal trust and stakeholder reassurance matter most. These results are consistent with role congruity expectations that females possess more relational, communal leadership styles that could result in higher levels of stakeholder orientation and brand supporting strategies under turbulent times. Yet, another line of enquiry questions the generalization that gender results in consistent or universal differences in leadership effects. Youssef et al. (2018) find no evidence of overall performance differences in French firms by boar (gender) diversity across several different financial measures. Their findings imply that institutional background, board structure and industry-specific factors can mitigate gender effects. Similar findings were derived in more recent empirical tests conducted by European regulators (e.g., CONSOB 2023 ) that suggested the relationship between gender diversity and firm performance is statistically insignificant after controlling for firm size, ownership concentration, and board independence. Such results demonstrate that the impact of gendered leadership may be context-moderated and not absolute.

Collectively, these divergent findings illuminate a consistent tension in the literature, whether gender differences reflect enduring innate leadership characteristics or whether apparent difference is influenced by situational, institutional, or role expectations. The dovetailing of these divergent perspectives contributes to the theoretical underpinnings of this study by recognizing that gender can play a role in how crisis leadership is considered, but its influence is not universal, and it is far from unproblematic. This more general theoretical integration also lays the groundwork for explaining cross-national variation between the UK and Saudi Arabia countries with markedly different institutional contexts of gender manifesting in expectations, norms, and structural constraints. By knowing this wide range of academic debates, the present study can place its assumptions in a detailed and complete theoretical framework.

Tight purse strings and capital preservation are typical crisis tactics. Leaders who focus on preserving liquidity by cutting costs and redrawing their investment playbook will likely improve short-term performance at the expense of longer-term performance. Atavistic austerity serves as a short-term aid to stay alive but kills innovation and brand value in the long run (Keller and Lehmann, 2006; Rego et al., 2022). Gender differences in financial propensity have been recognized: female executives tend to be more conservative in financing decisions, including less leverage and risk-avoidant behavior (Post and Byron, 2015). However, the evidence is mixed. In some contexts, female leaders are proponents of selective investment if the value of the brand is threatened, which is an example of context-dependent behavior. Some others do not find any gender discrepancy in decision-making on financial crises once external constraints are considered. This applied to both positive and negative impacts, as well as the inscribed or contested nature of gendered financial orientation. Equations should be inserted in an editable format using the equation editor.

Marketing spending and brand investment during crises are critical mediators between leadership and brand outcomes. The resource-based view and brand equity theory emphasize that marketing activities sustain consumer trust, brand salience, and long-term competitive advantages (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Empirical studies of past crises, such as the 2008 downturn and COVID-19, show that firms that maintained or reallocated marketing budgets preserved brand equity and rebounded faster, whereas those that cut budgets deeply suffered longer-term losses (Rego et al., 2022). Gender differences are also suggested here: women leaders, with greater stakeholder orientation, are reported to champion consumer-focused and CSR-related investments that buffer brand equity (Wei, 2022; Zenger and Folkman, 2020). However, some firms led by women still reduced marketing during acute crises, particularly when liquidity was constrained, or boards resisted discretionary spending. Therefore, while marketing investment is generally positive for brand resilience, empirical results reveal trade-offs with financial survival shaped by context.

A great mediator through which the leader’s gender affects BE resilience is communication. Research in the field of crisis communication has shown the value of clear, empathetic, and timely messages to protect reputation and maintain trust with stakeholders (Coombs et al., 2008). According to Role Congruity Theory, women are stereotypically presumed to be higher in relationships and empathy than men which would result in more positive stakeholder evaluations of their crisis communication (Eagly and Heilman, 2016). Empirical evidence also demands that female leaders are better evaluated in the communication effectiveness during a crisis and such information adds value to consumer trust and brand image (Zenger et al., 2009). But there are also documented adverse results. Women who employ dominant or agentic or financially punitive communication styles may be more negatively evaluated than male leaders using similar behavior, which is a form of role incongruity penalty. Too much chatting without any prospective action can also make communication courted with spam. Therefore, the influence of communication style on brand equity is contingent upon the communication among message content that is conveyed and its mode of delivery in relation to institutional expectations. Brand Equity Resilience.

Brand equity resilience is the dependent variable of interest, which reflects a firm’s capacity to maintain brand worth in crises. As per Keller (1993), consumer-based brand equity is based on awareness, associations, perceived value, and loyalty, and three out of these four dimensions can be influenced by trust decay. There are evidence-supported supported findings indicating that companies, which maintain consumer engagement and marketing (Hanssens et al., 2014; Keller and Lehmann, 2006) and communicate with empathy are more successful in terms of brand resilience and recover faster from crises (Rêgo et al., 2022). On the other hand, you can end up with permanently damaged consumer perception and brand value if you undertake severe austerity or make reputation-spoiling missteps. The fact is, that’s not the whole story the reality of brand equity resilience is complex and challenging: some companies have been able to preserve their equity despite reduced spending because they were resting on strong brand strength; and others that have high spend have failed with subpar messaging. Therefore, resilience depends not only on expenditures but also on leadership decisions, strategic consistency and stakeholder confidence.

Institutional and cultural contexts, such as the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, moderate gender–strategy outcome relationships. Institutional theory argues that norms, regulations, and culture shape organizational behavior (North, 1990; Scott, 2010). In the UK, strong governance frameworks and greater gender parity in leadership provide female executives with the legitimacy to adopt stakeholder-oriented strategies. In Saudi Arabia, Vision 2030 reforms have expanded women’s leadership roles; however, structural and cultural barriers persist (Elbushra et al., 2025). Cross-national research demonstrates that gender effects vary across contexts: in more egalitarian societies, gender differences in leadership style and stakeholder reception may be amplified, whereas in conservative contexts, female leaders may face stronger constraints or biased evaluations (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Ryan and Haslam, 2005). Thus, the institutional context is expected to moderate both leader behavior and stakeholder responses.

This study follows a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design as its research design, which commences with a quantitative stage and tests the postulated links among leader gender, crisis strategies for brand management, and resilience in brand equity. First, priority is given to the quantitative part because it can provide generalizable results and statistical testing for the conceptual model hypothesized in this study. Quantitative research is well-positioned for use as it allows researchers to determine both the strength and direction of relationships among a stable, large sample (Creswelland Creswell, 2018). The qualitative phase, which generates a deeper understanding and explanations of the descriptive results, is informed by the findings from the quantitative phase.

The target population is limited to UK-based and Saudi Arabian-located firms, particularly in industries that are highly affected by crises (e.g., retail, finance, hospitality, and consumer products). These industries were selected because of their high sensitivity to economic deceleration and heavy dependence on brand equity as a competitive resource (Rego et al., 2022). This study employs purposive sampling to select firms with obvious crisis exposure to COVID-19 and other current economic shocks. In these organizations, the focal unit of analysis is their top management team, comprising the CEOs, CMOs, and CFOs, who make decisions that directly determine crisis strategy formation. A sample of around 300 firms (150 from each country) will be sought based on previous studies in the area of gender and governance, which have suggested that larger samples yield greater statistical power and provide opportunities for cross-society comparisons (Post and Byron, 2015).

Units of analysis for the quantitative phase were sampled through a multi-staged purposive method. First, organizations within sectors vulnerable to crises such as retail, finance, hospitality and consumer goods were collected through standard industry codes (as defined by Companies House (United Kingdom) and Tadawul/Saudi companies’ registries). Second, companies were then screened for the presence of CEO, CFO and/or CMO that had a gender-identifiable profile from publicly available data. Third, senior executive invitations were sent out and 298 firms took part in the final sample (N = 150 for UK; N = 148 for Saudi Arabia). This method helped to guarantee inclusion from companies with proven crisis exposure and more easily identifiable leadership.

In the qualitative phase, criterion-based purposive sampling was applied to interview key participants who were responsible for financial or marketing decisions related to the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID-19. The first participants were found through LinkedIn and professional contacts, then snowball method was applied to access additional subjects who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 32 executives (16 UK; 16 Saudi Arabia) were included. For gender representation the respondents who participated in this study (18 male, and 14 female) on purpose to capture the gendered nature of communication in financial stance and marketing orientation.

Several steps were taken to establish the reliability and validity of the quantitative instrument. The internal consistency of the scales was evaluated with Cronbach’s alpha, which exceeded the recommended value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019). The convergent validity was investigated by factor loadings and Average Variance Extracted (AVE), both of which far exceeded the criterion values (loadings > 0. 60, AVE > 0. 50). Discriminant validity was evaluated through Fornell–Larcker criterion, which revealed that the square roots of AVE of each construct were greater than inter-construct correlations. Further, Harman’s single-factor test showed that common method bias was not a serious issue as the first factor explained less than 40% of total variance. Credibility, dependability, and confirmability of qualitative data were established according to Guba and Lincoln, (1994). Trustworthiness was established using member checking where two participants were asked to confirm the validity of the interpreted themes. Dependability was enhanced through an audit trail of coding decisions and reflexive memos. This approach involved taking the interview data and breaking it down by factor or theme to explain variance patterns when connected with our quantitative results, thus supporting confirmability.

The data will be obtained from two primary sources: structured surveys and secondary data, including financial reports, marketing disclosures, and brand value indexes. The measurement model includes the following constructs: leadership gender diversity, financial austerity orientation, marketing and communication strategies, and perceived brand equity resilience. The study is drawn on existing leadership and marketing research and adapt items from established scales to ensure reliability and construct validity (Elbushra et al., 2025; Keller, 1993). Objective measures of financial performance such as return on assets and marketing spend data will be obtained by secondary sources, such as from Brand Finance and company filings for brand valuations. Employing both perceptive and objective data causes triangulation and controls biases in single-source measurements (Hair et al., 2019).

The instrument was constructed by adapting items from existing and well-validated measurement instruments. The lists and sources of items for the fiscal austerity construct originated from crisis management and turnaround strategy scales (Boyne and Meier, 2009). The marketing investment and brand equity resilience constructs came from the brand equity literature (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Communication style was lifted from Coombs et al. (2008) crisis communication recommendations and included topics of transparency, empathy, and message frequency. A draft of the questionnaire was pilot tested with 12 executives (6 UK; 6 Saudi Arabia) to ensure clarity, cultural appropriateness and content validity. Minor adjustments to improve wording and clarify intent were made upon suggestions. The last version of the questionnaire consisted on 28 items distributed in all constructs and was measured with a Likert’s scale of 5-points.

Leadership gender is operationalized as both a categorical variable (male/female CEO, CFO, CMO) and a continuous measure of gender diversity within the top management team, using Blau’s index of heterogeneity (Blau, 1977). Financial crisis strategy is measured by changes in cost structures, liquidity ratios, and reported austerity measures, while marketing investment is captured through changes in marketing spending relative to sales and brand-building activities. Communication style will be assessed using survey items reflecting transparency, empathy, and frequency of stakeholder engagement, consistent with the crisis communication literature (Coombs, 2007). Brand equity resilience is operationalized through perceptual survey measures (consumer trust, loyalty, perceived quality) and secondary market-based indicators, such as brand value scores (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Institutional context was coded as a binary variable (United Kingdom = 0, Saudi Arabia = 1) to allow for moderation analysis. Control variables, including firm size, industry, firm age, and ownership structure, are included given their established influence on brand outcomes (Rego et al., 2022).

Leader gender was operationalized at both the individual executive level and the team level to ensure conceptual clarity and analytical rigor. Specifically, the gender of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) were coded separately using binary dummy variables (0 = Male, 1 = Female), based on publicly available executive profiles, company annual reports, and corporate websites. This disaggregated approach avoids conceptual ambiguity and is consistent with methodological recommendations in upper echelons and gender-diversity research (Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Post and Byron, 2015). For the main structural equation models reported in the manuscript, a composite leadership gender indicator was constructed by taking the mean of the three executive gender dummies (CEO, CFO, CMO). This index ranges from 0 to 1, where:

This approach captures the proportion of female representation in the top leadership triad, rather than relying solely on a single role such as the CEO, and better reflects the collective influence of the top management team on strategic decisions, as recommended in upper echelons research (Carpenter et al., 2004; Finkelstein et al., 2009). In addition to the composite gender measure, team-level gender diversity was operationalized using (Blau and Boal, 1989) index of heterogeneity, calculated as:

where p_i represents the proportion of males and females within the CEO–CFO–CMO leadership team. The gender diversity index varies from 0 (complete homogeneity in regard to gender) to 0.50 (cumulative diversity score for a two-class society). This two-fold operationalization (composite gender proportion + Blau index) provides the possibility to differentiate between female leadership intensity and gender diversity, which are theoretically distinct constructs (Post and Byron, 2015; Terjesen et al., 2016). Though historical research would typically only consider CEO gender, crisis strategy formation in modern organizations is increasingly framed by cross-functional leadership teams most notably CEO–CFO–CMO triad that jointly governs financial rectitude, brand investment and stakeholder dialogue. Therefore, consistent with the appeals for intra-team level upper echelons measurement (Carpenter et al., 2004). In the study, both disaggregated role-specific gender indicators and an aggregated leadership gender index are used.

In the analysis of the quantitative data, careful preparation was made to enhance the accuracy and validity of the findings. Responses to the survey were checked for completeness, and missing items were imputed using multiple imputations to minimize potential bias that could have arisen due to missing data and issues with no measurable outcome impact on statistical power. The Mahalanobis distance was used to identify outliers, and extreme values were Winsorized to avoid distortion of parameter estimates. Common method variance was controlled using Harman’s single-factor test and the marker-variable strategy, both of which demonstrated no evidence of any one factor dominating the covariances (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Descriptive statistics and bivariate associations were calculated to profile the sample and initially explore the relationships among the study variables. Given that missingness was low to moderate, only after diagnostics, multiple imputation was used to minimize bias and increase statistical power. There were conducted multiple imputation according to chained equations, which also included all variables from the study (predictors, mediators, outcomes for both T1 and T2, and demographic controls), so a properly specified model of imputation was achieved. Twenty imputed datasets were created, which is recommended in methodological literature for obtaining stable parameter estimates in SEM. In order to deal with the influence of outliers, variables have been winsorized at the 1st and 99th percentiles. The selected cut-offs to minimize the distortion of statistical outliers and retain substantive distribution for the data, fitting standard approach adopted in upper-echelons & strategic-management research. Winsorization was conducted before multiple imputation to prevent extreme or non-representative values from being imputed. Table 1 shows descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability estimates.

Construct reliability and validity were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency reliability was confirmed, as Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70. Convergent validity was established, with average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeding 0.50 for all constructs. Discriminant validity was confirmed using both the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT), ensuring that constructs such as financial austerity orientation, marketing investment, communication style, and brand equity resilience were empirically distinct. These results indicate that the measurement model met the established psychometric standards (Hair et al., 2019).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the measurement models. The five-factor model (financial austerity, marketing investment, communication style, brand equity resilience, and gender diversity) demonstrated a good fit to the data: χ²(199) = 321.45, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.046, and SRMR = 0.041. All factor loadings exceeded 0.60 and were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The reliability and validity results are presented in Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) values exceeded 0.70 for all the constructs. The average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50, and the Fornell–Larcker criterion confirmed discriminant validity. The HTMT ratios were below 0.85, further establishing construct distinctiveness (Hair et al., 2019).

The reliability and validity results are presented in Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) values exceeded 0.70 for all the constructs. The average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50, and the Fornell–Larcker criterion confirmed discriminant validity. The HTMT ratios were below 0.85, further establishing construct distinctiveness (Hair et al., 2019). The reliability and validity of the constructs were assessed before testing the structural model. As shown in Table 2, all the reflective constructs demonstrated strong internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged between 0.82 and 0.88, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), while composite reliability (CR) values ranged from 0.85 to 0.90, confirming construct reliability above the 0.70 benchmark (Hair et al., 2019). The average variance extracted (AVE) values for all constructs exceeded 0.50, with financial austerity (0.56), marketing investment (0.62), communication style (0.60), and brand equity resilience (0.64) each surpassing the minimum threshold, thereby establishing convergent validity.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed as the primary technique to test the hypotheses, as it allowed for the simultaneous estimation of direct, indirect, and moderated relationships while accounting for measurement errors. Hypotheses H1a–H1c, which posited that leader gender influenced financial strategies, marketing investment, and communication style, were tested through direct structural paths and found to be significant in several cases. Mediation hypotheses (H2a–H3) were tested using a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 re-samples. The results confirmed significant indirect effects, providing robust support for mediation, consistent with the methodological recommendations of Preacher and Hayes, (2008).

Hypothesis H4, which examined the role of gender diversity in leadership teams, was tested using Blau’s index of heterogeneity as a predictor of brand equity resilience. The analysis revealed that gender-diverse leadership teams reported stronger brand resilience outcomes than single-gender teams. Hypothesis H5, concerning institutional moderation, was tested through multi-group SEM. Separate models were estimated for the UK and Saudi Arabia, and chi-square difference tests indicated significant differences in path coefficients, demonstrating that the institutional context moderated the effects of leader gender and crisis strategies (Byrne, 2001). Hypothesis H6, which addressed moderated mediation, was tested using the PROCESS macro (Model 14) in SPSS. The results show that the indirect effects of leader gender on brand equity resilience through crisis strategies are contingent on firm-level financial constraints such as liquidity and leverage (Hayes and Hofmann, 2018).

Figure 1 illustrates the measurement model, with the standardized indicator loadings (λ) displayed for each item. All reflective indicators loaded significantly on their respective constructs, with values ranging from 0.73 to 0.90, surpassing the commonly accepted cut-off of 0.70 (Chin, 1998). For example, “transparent messaging” (λ = 0.82) and “empathy in communication” (λ = 0.85) exhibited particularly strong loadings on the communication style construct, highlighting their centrality to crisis communication effectiveness. Similarly, the brand equity resilience construct was robustly captured by indicators of customer loyalty (λ = 0.87), brand trust (λ = 0.90), and perceived value (λ = 0.85). Collectively, these results provide strong evidence that the measurement model demonstrates acceptable reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. This robust measurement foundation enabled valid inferences to be drawn from the subsequent structural model analysis.

Table 3 summarizes the results of the structural model analyses. Path coefficients, t-values, and significance levels were obtained through bootstrapping with 5,000 resample. In addition to structural equation modeling (SEM), PROCESS Model 14 was employed to test the moderated mediation pathway involving financial constraint. PROCESS was used because it allows a flexible estimation of conditional indirect effects with heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors and bias-corrected bootstrapping. To ensure methodological consistency, compared PROCESS outputs with SEM-based bootstrapping results. Both approaches yielded highly similar effect sizes, significance levels, and confidence intervals, indicating that the moderated mediation pattern is stable across analytical frameworks. Because PROCESS estimates conditional indirect effects more directly than SEM in cases with a single moderator, PROCESS Model 14 was used as an appropriate complementary method for testing this specific mechanism.

Leader gender demonstrated significant positive effects on both marketing investment (β = 0.21, t = 3.42, p < 0.01) and communication style (β = 0.25, t = 3.88, p < 0.01), supporting H1b and H1c. These findings are consistent with the role congruity theory, which suggests that female leaders, often perceived as more stakeholder-oriented, prioritize marketing and communication during crises. However, the relationship between leader gender and financial austerity was not significant (β = 0.12, t = 1.46, p = 0.08), leading to the rejection of Hypothesis H1a. This result indicates that cost control strategies are less influenced by gender differences and may instead be driven by institutional or industry pressures.

Regarding mediation pathways, marketing investment exerted a significant positive influence on brand equity resilience (β = 0.28, t = 4.12, p < 0.01), supporting H2b. Communication style also showed a positive relationship with brand equity resilience (β = 0.24, t = 2.65, p < 0.05), confirming H2c. Conversely, financial austerity did not significantly affect brand equity resilience (β = –0.10, t = 1.23, p = 0.22), leading to the rejection of H2a. Collectively, these results suggest that while proactive marketing and transparent communication strengthen brand equity during crises, cost-cutting alone does not safeguard consumer trust and loyalty.

The direct effect of gender diversity on brand equity resilience was positive and significant (β = 0.27, t = 3.98, p < 0.01), supporting H3. This finding aligns with upper echelon theory, which emphasizes the performance benefits of diverse leadership teams, particularly in contexts requiring balanced financial and marketing considerations.

Institutional context (UK vs. Saudi Arabia) emerged as a significant moderator (ΔR² = 0.07, t = 2.84, p < 0.01), supporting H4. Specifically, gender effects on marketing and communication strategies were stronger in the UK, whereas financial austerity responses were more pronounced in Saudi Arabia. These differences reflect the institutional and cultural contingencies that shape crisis leadership. Finally, moderated mediation analysis revealed that financial constraints amplified the indirect effect of leader sex on brand equity through marketing investment (Index = 0.08, t = 2.15, p < 0.05), confirming Hypothesis H5. This indicates that under conditions of high financial pressure, gender-driven differences in marketing allocation are particularly consequential for brand resilience.

Causal inferences cannot be made as the quantitative stage is cross-sectional and observational (Rindfleisch et al., 2008; Spector, 2019). Leadership research falls into recurring concern about problems of endogeneity such as omitted variables and selection processes (Aguinis and Vandenberg, 2014; Antonakis and Dietz, 2011), including the “glass cliff” (Ryan et al., 2016) whereby women are disproportionately assigned to precarious leadership positions. Hence, the associations identified in this paper should be viewed as correlational rather than causal. However, in line with the transparent reporting of SEM and regression-based analyses has been presented full statistical output in Supplementary Appendices A,B to include (a) all direct path coefficients (b) mediation and moderation estimates, (c) control variable coefficients (firm size, firm age, industry category, ownership structure), and finally (d) the complete set of diagnostic statistics including VIFs. Overall, the results reveal that gendered leadership significantly shapes strategic responses to crises, with marketing investment and communication style emerging as the most effective channels for safeguarding brand equity during crises. In contrast, financial austerity demonstrated limited efficacy, suggesting that brand resilience depends less on cost control and more on sustained engagement with stakeholders. Importantly, the moderating role of institutional context highlights that leadership effectiveness cannot be divorced from a broader cultural and regulatory environment. These findings contribute to upper echelon and role congruity theories by demonstrating how gender, strategy, and institutional factors interact to influence organizational outcomes in times of crisis. The questionnaire sample can be found as Supplementary Appendix G.

Robustness checks were conducted to confirm the stability. Hierarchical regression analyses were performed as an alternative estimation method, and the results were consistent with those of SEM models. Variance inflation factors (VIF) were calculated to assess multicollinearity, with all values below the recommended threshold of 5, indicating no significant multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2019). Additionally, alternative operationalizations of brand equity were tested, including consumer-based measures (e.g., awareness, loyalty, trust) and market-based measures (e.g., brand value, stock performance). The results were consistent across these different measures, providing further confidence in the robustness of the findings.

While the quantitative analysis provided robust evidence of the relationships between leadership gender, strategic choices, and brand equity resilience, it did not fully capture the underlying decision-making processes or contextual nuances of these dynamics. Therefore, a qualitative strand was incorporated, consistent with an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2023). This approach enabled a deeper exploration of how and why leaders in different institutional contexts navigate the tensions between financial austerity, marketing investment, and communication strategies during crises. By focusing on leaders lived experiences, the qualitative inquiry provided interpretive insights into the statistical patterns identified in the quantitative analysis, thereby enhancing the explanatory power of the overall study. The qualitative component was designed specifically to enhance, fine-tune, and contextualize the quantitative results. Interviews Using explanatory sequential logic, guide questions focused directly on the strongest statistical links (gender in communication and marketing spend) and exploratory ones where statistics were weak or non-significant (austerity decisions). This guaranteed that qualitative insights were the counterpart and not regurgitation of quantitative results but also that they offered an enabling explanatory bridge between statistical trends and leadership practice.

To address any concerns about the stability of the results, two robustness checks were run: (a) hierarchical regressions testing incremental variance explained at each model stage and (b) alternative brand equity measures to test whether findings were consistent across different dependent variable definitions (see Supplementary Appendices D,E).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 senior executives from the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. The participants included CEOs, CFOs, and CMOs, ensuring representation from both financial and marketing leadership roles. The UK sample (n = 16) was drawn from FTSE 350-listed firms across sectors, including retail, financial services, and consumer goods. The Saudi sample (n = 16) comprised executives from firms aligned with the Vision 2030 priority sectors, such as energy, telecommunications, and diversified conglomerates.

A purposive sampling strategy was employed to target executives with direct crisis leadership experience during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic. Access was facilitated through a combination of professional networks, LinkedIn outreach, and corporate governance associations in both contexts. This targeted approach was justified because executives occupying senior financial and marketing roles are uniquely positioned to make resource allocation and brand protection decisions during crises (Rego et al., 2022). Gender balance was prioritized, with 18 men and 14 women included, to enable exploration of gendered perspectives.

To increase transparency and ensure qualitative reporting criteria (Creswell and Poth, 2016; Gibbs, 2018) were met Table 4 details the interview participants’ anonymized information. For purposes of confidentiality, all names were replaced with participant codes. The table contains role, sector, country and gender of all participants demonstrating the spread and diversity of leadership experience covered in the qualitative phase. This diversity facilitated triangulation across sectors and yielded rich insights into gendered crisis leadership behaviors across the UK and Saudi Arabia.

For methodological transparency and to illustrate the systematic development of qualitative themes, a brief codebook is presented below, which aligns with Braun and Clarke’s (2006; 2021) reflexive thematic analysis guidelines. Furthermore, a triangulation matrix is presented to show how qualitative insights substantiate or elaborate on quantitative findings in a sequential explanatory design.

Audio recordings of all interviews were transcribed in full, and analysis followed a reflexive thematic approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The analysis comprised six stages: familiarization, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining the themes and writing up. A coding framework was established in a deductive manner based on Upper Echelons Theory and Role Congruity Theory and was subsequently adjusted inductively whenever new aspects emerged during the iterative analysis of the transcripts. Coding was performed manually according to structured coding tables in Microsoft Excel, with each transcript divided into units of meaning and initially described through codes representing the underlying meaning, which were subsequently connected to emerging themes. Decisions about coding, reflections on these decisions and proposed revisions to the themes were summarized through analytic memos for an audit trail providing transparency and reliability.

A second researcher coded 25% of the Noyes using the same coding template to enhance credibility. Coders convened to compare interpretations, resolve discrepancies and come into conceptual agreement. Consistent with reflexive thematic analysis, the goal of this approach was to improve interpretative credibility as opposed to producing a statistical reliability coefficient (Braun and Clarke, 2021). Member checking was conducted by presenting summary interpretations (not full transcripts) to participants for accuracy and contextual appropriateness. Some minor modifications proposed by participants were introduced while analyzing the data.

Quotes were selected for being clear, for reflecting the broader pattern, and for its illustrative value in demonstrating diversity (including deviant or disconfirming cases). All quotes were anonymized with a PIN held by gender, sector and country. Quotations were selected based on (a) the richness and clarity of expression, (b) the degree to which it was clear that a theme applied across multiple participants and (c) representation of divergent or negative cases where these existed. Quoted sections were verified against the audit trail to confirm that they represented patterns of analysis rather than isolated incidents.

For the qualitative strand, we used a reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2021), combining both deductive and inductive coding. Deductive code generation through a deductive approach, a preliminary coding framework was developed based on Upper Echelons Theory and Role Congruity theory to find evidence of leadership constructs. Codes were refined inductively based on new patterns from the transcripts illuminated through the data. This mixed approach provided theoretical grounding and openness to new knowledge. Before the interview, all respondents were sent a study information sheet describing the purpose of the research, that participation was voluntary, confidential they could withdraw at any time without prejudice. Informed consent was obtained in writing electronically. Names, organizations any other identifiers were redacted from all transcripts. Audio files and transcripts were saved to a password-protected institutional drive that was restricted to the research team. Consistent with their institutional policies, formal IRB approval was not necessary because this study entailed minimal-risk interviews with consenting professionals. Nevertheless, all due ethical precautions were taken in the implementation of this research (informed consent, anonymization, encryption and secure storage of data, voluntary participation) so as to maintain participants’ confidentiality and protect their data. Table 5 shows the sample codes.

This study investigates how leadership gender, financial and marketing strategies, communication styles, and institutional context shape brand equity resilience during crises. Quantitative analysis revealed that marketing investment, communication style, and gender diversity significantly enhance brand equity resilience, whereas financial austerity exerts no significant effect. These statistical patterns were reinforced and illuminated by the qualitative findings, which illustrated how executives in different contexts navigated the dilemma between austerity and investment, adopted gendered approaches to communication, and benefited from diverse decision-making. Together, these results underscore the importance of cross-functional and gender-inclusive leadership in safeguarding brand equity when organizations experience economic shocks.

This study contributes to theory in various ways. First, it contributes to the upper echelons theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) by showing that the gender composition at the top management team level not only influences firm-level strategies but also interacts with institutional contexts to determine strategic outcomes. That gender diversity has a positive role suggests that leadership diversity is not symbolic- but acutely influences strategic resilience in crises. Second, the results extend role congruity theory (Eagly and Karau, 2002) by demonstrating how communal forms of leadership including empathy-based communication have real impact in enhancing brand equity. Crucially, the interviews demonstrated that these gendered practices are not fixed but forged by cultural mores: in the UK were bolstered by regulatory tallies while in Saudi Arabia braked by institutional conservatism. Finally, the study combines brand equity theory (Keller, 1993), and stakeholder theory (Freeman and Boeker, 1984). This research reveals how strategic leadership practices converge financial and marketing paradigms, where organizational resilience as a construct is directly connected to consumer confidence.

These discoveries offer practical implications for senior managers and boards. First, they warn against relying too much on financial austerity as a response to crises, and although cost control plans may help to maintain liquidity in the short-term, both the survey and interviews suggested that it erodes consumer confidence and hampers recovery. So, instead of treating brand investment as a cost, it is discretionary to cut when times are tough, managers should approach brand building as strategic insurance. Secondly, the findings emphasize that communication as a leadership instrument is paramount. Empathetic and transparent communication is key to maintaining confidence amongst consumers as well as morale within the employee base. Organizations would be wise to invest in developing these skills, especially around relationship communication where these may be undervalued by finance leaders. Third, the positive role of gender diversity on brand resilience highlights the need for organizations to incorporate diverse perspectives within their executive board. Boards need to look past compliance-triggered gender quotas and take steps to exploit diversity as a strategic asset that can help build resilience in crises.

There are also broader implications of this study for policymakers and institution builders. In the UK,  governance codes and shareholder activism have entrenched a long-term stakeholder orientation that prevents firms from being subjected to excessive harshness. Strengthening these mechanisms may enhance resilience. Reform embedded within Vision 2030 in Saudi Arabia has increased leadership opportunities for women, yet qualitative evidence shows that cultural and structural barriers remain. Policy makers should thus combine reforms with measures that enable women leaders to shape financial and strategic decision-making, as opposed to relegating them to symbolic roles.” Regulators and industry associations can also motivate firms to incorporate brand equity protection in corporate governance reporting, positioning institutional incentives closer to resilience-based approaches.