Decision-making in the recruitment of women on corporate boards: does gender matter?

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2021-0188
• Published date: 15 March 2022
• Date: 15 March 2022
• Pages: 813-830
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion
• Author: Sneh Bhardwaj

Decision-making in the

recruitment of women on corporate

boards: does gender matter?

Sneh Bhardwaj

Federation University, Ballarat, Australia

Abstract

Purpose –The author provides an insider view of women directors’selections on corporate boards from the

empirical setting of India and find if the recruitment practices in this space discriminate against women.

Design/methodology/approach –The study collected data from a diverse cohort of 27 directors through

semi-structured interviews. The data were analysed by applying an interpretative inductive approach and

using the software NVivo’s 12-plus version.

Findings –The author’s findings show that board recruiters present different selection criteriaand processes

to women candidates dependingupon heterogeneity among candidates’professional standing. Recruiters view

women directors as a diverse cohort and value resourceful and experienced women when making recruitment

decisions; these women directors are also found influencing directors’selection processes.

Originality/value –The results question the underlying assumptions of prejudice against women as posited

by the feminist and social identity theorists without accounting for the heterogeneity among women and

situations. By proposing the female-gender stereotyping deactivation theory in top leadership matters, such as

board selections, the author argues that stereotyping becomes irrelevant in the strategic decisions of board

selections. This new theorisation about women’s access to leadership roles will help the cause of women

empowerment both at a cognitive and practical level. Future researchers can test the gender deactivation

theory among women leaders in diverse cultural contexts by looking at the intra-cohort differences among

women leaders.

Keywords Gender deactivation, Inductive approach, Board recruiters, Female-gender stereotyping, Women

directors

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

A male-dominatedhomogeneous population on corporate boards arguablyresults from a bias

in board recruitment decisions rooted in a social rationale (i.e. hiring directors from informal

networks) (Elms et al., 2015;Kacanski, 2019). Social identity theorists posit individuals

occupying similarpositions show similar behaviours, orientationsand dispositions that result

in a homosocial reproduction of in-group members (Tajfel and Turner, 2004). Consequently,

board recruiters, mostly men, hire similar-looking directors who are again men, suggesting

prejudice against women in board recruitments (Burke, 1997;Sheridan and Milgate, 2005).

Cognitive psychologists theorise that female gender stereotyping is automatically activated

upon exposure to the(female) category with or without awarenessof the perceiver (Ridgeway

and Correll, 2000). In a counter view, Deutch (2007) argues reduced access to female gender

stereotypes,exposureto counter stereotypicalimages and thoughts, andintentional attemptsto

avoidprejudices lead to the deactivationof gendered thoughtsin many situationsand contexts.

Women’s

recruitment on

corporate

boards

813

The author is grateful to Sargam Bhardwaj (3rd year Medicine student at the Flinders University

Australia), Prof Alison Sheridan and Prof Damian Morgan for their thoughts and constructive feedback

on earlier versions of this manuscript. This paper partly figures in the PhD study of the author, which is

funded by the Research Training Program scholarship of the Government of Australia. The author

declares on conflict of interest whatsoever during any stage of data collection, analysis, paper writing or

any other process in this research.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 10 August 2021

Revised 25 October 2021

15 January 2022

Accepted 24 February 2022

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 41 No. 6, 2022

pp. 813-830

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-08-2021-0188

This lineof thinking suggests recruiterswill not view women directors’selectionas a gendered

process rather asa vital management decision aimed atadding value to the board’s guidance

and monitoring ability. A third view suggests incumbent women reject other women

candidates’boardaccess perceiving them as a threat to theirmonopolised candidature (Derks

et al.,2016). Countering this, Deloitte(2019) has shown chiefexecutive officer (CEO)’sand board

chair’s female gender to be favourable for women’s board appointments. Also, the

implementation of quota laws in several nations including the 2015 quota in India led to

more womengetting access to the corporate boards(Bhardwaj, 2021;Catalyst,2020). However,

controversyhas surfaced that quotasresulted in the recyclingof incumbent women ratherthan

opening up directorship positions for the talented first-timer women candidates (Ahern and

Dittmar, 2012).This mixed evidence suggestsresearch explaining the embeddedprejudices in

women directors’selection processesis confusing and needs clear direction.

I undertake this examination to explore board recruiters’decisions relating to women

directors’selections in the empirical setting of India and ask the following questions: how do

board recruiters assess and select women directors, and are these recruitment processes

discriminatory? Can women directors influence directors’selection on corporate boards? The

recruiters here refer to the nomination committee members comprising both insider and

outsider directors on Indian boards.

India provides an apt setting to examine this issue for three reasons. First, India, as a key

developing economy with its well-developed regulatory system aims at achieving robust

corporate governance through promoting gender balance on corporate boards (The Indian

Companies Act, 2013). Second, despite India being home to 17% women globally, the issues of

women corporate directors generally and their board selections particularly (for exceptions

see Haldar et al., 2020) have received sparse scholarly attention in the global south. Most of the

evidence on directors’selection has come from Western nations’context (Withers et al., 2012;

Elms et al., 2015), which provides little help to unpack the nuances related to women directors

in the global south. Third, the patriarchal socio-cultural setup of India allows more tolerance

for power-differences and thus creates more opportunities for perpetrating and tolerating

prejudice against women (Shyamsunder et al., 2015). Thus, a low gender inclusion domain in

India can activate access to female gender stereotyping much easily than other nations, such

as Norway, with a high gender inclusion domain (McGuinness et al., 2020;Ridgeway and

Correll, 2000;World Economic Forum’s (WEF), 2018).

My study makes three vital contributions to theory and practice. Practice wise, I find

board recruiters place a high value on resourceful experienced (i.e. women directors with

relevant experience, expertise, qualification and industry-wide linkages) women when

making recruitment decisions. My study thus corroborates the argument that women

entering or aspiring to enter the boardrooms are highly driven, career-oriented and have

accumulated immense human capital (i.e. education, work knowledge and skills) when

presenting for board roles (Adams, 2016;Adams and Funk, 2012). A second finding shows

Indian board women navigate tough social and workplace barriers to climb the career ladder.

These findings reinforce the scholarly observations that suggest board women cannot be said

to represent the attributes and human capital of the wider female population (Adams, 2016;

Adams and Funk, 2012). Third, I find experienced women influencing the board recruitment

processes. My paper thus questions the underlying assumptions of prejudice against women

as posited by the feminist and social identity theorists without accounting for the

heterogeneity among women and situations (Ridgeway and Correll, 2000;Tajfel and Turner,

2004). Instead, I theorise the deactivation of female gender stereotyping among women in top

leadership matters, such as board selections, to an extent that this stereotyping becomes

irrelevant. This new theorisation about women’s access to leadership roles will help the cause

of women empowerment both at cognitive and practical levels.

EDI

41,6

814