Seen and not heard: A comparative case study of women on boards and process loss beyond critical mass

• Published date: 01 March 2024
• Author: Louise Tilbury,Ruth Sealy
• Date: 01 March 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12524

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Seen and not heard: A comparative case study of women on

boards and process loss beyond critical mass

Louise Tilbury | Ruth Sealy

University of Exeter Business School, Rennes

Drive, Exeter, EX4 4PU, UK

Correspondence

Louise Tilbury, University of Exeter Business

School, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK.

Email: lt390@exeter.ac.uk

Funding information

University of Exeter Business School

Abstract

Research Question/Issue: Building on a classic model of socio-cognitive board pro-

cesses, we consider the behaviors of men and women directors in boardrooms. We

question whether having a critical mass of women on boards, defined as three or

more women, removes barriers to women's participation in the boardroom, asking

“How does gender influence board processes in boards with three or more women?”

Research Findings/Insights: Using a comparative case study of three boards through

board observation and qualitative interviews, we question the assumption that a criti-

cal mass of women delivers effective board processes. We reinterpret the need for

women to collaborate supportively as process loss, defined as interaction difficulties

preventing groups reaching full potential, revealing potential barriers for women non-

executive directors to contribute across the whole agenda, particularly during critical

debates.

Theoretical/Academic Implications: Critical mass theory ignores important interac-

tions between gender and other job-related characteristics to underestimate social

complexity in the boardroom. Building on an existing typology of diversity, we sug-

gest that gender in the boardroom can operate as status diversity (disparity), as well

as information-based diversity (variety) and value-based diversity (separation).

Practitioner/Policy Implications: Chairs and board evaluators who observe board

meetings should be vigilant for patterns of participation and collaboration that indi-

cate that women directors are experiencing restricted access to discussion, in partic-

ular if women are interrupted. Board leadership decisions should be reviewed

regularly to ensure they are supporting board effectiveness, maintaining focus on the

task rather than navigating complex social dynamics.

KEYWORDS

board observations, board processes, comparative case study, critical mass, women on boards

1|INTRODUCTION

Since Kanter's (1977) ground-breaking work on men and women in

the workplace, research has shown that extreme demographic

minorities (less than 15% representation, described as “tokens”) can

be disruptive to group dynamics and have detrimental impacts to the

minority's ability to contribute. As sole women entered corporate

boardrooms, the dynamics and challenges of tokenism were recorded

Received: 24 January 2022 Revised: 20 February 2023 Accepted: 27 February 2023

DOI: 10.1111/corg.12524

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any

medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

© 2023 The Authors. Corporate Governance: An International Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

190 Corp Govern Int Rev. 2024;32:190–204.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/corg