Search

The purpose of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the multiple cultural and institutional antecedents which can positively (or negatively) impact the incorporation of more women on corporate boards (WoCB). Many contemporary discourses about quotas versus voluntary actions by corporations as drivers of greater gender diversity on boards are largely based on cross-country mimicking. These discourses often fail to integrate country-level configurations and conditions, as drivers or barriers to change. We advance this research by seeking to understand the complexity of such multiple antecedents to getting WoCB. Results show multiple macro factors involved in getting WoCB in Europe. We test the complex inter-relations of factors such as legislation, cultural, societal, economic, political, and institutional variables, and their effects. Findings highlight important drivers of more women on boards such as gender equality in political empowerment and institutional settings; government-regulated maternity and paternity leave; specific legislative or soft quota policies; and societal cultural variables, such as (low) power distance and (high) assertiveness, as drivers of getting WoCB. These results prove the need to consider and complement legislative policies to specific cultural and institutional conditions in each country. To help policymakers, we provide insights into which multiple macro factors act as drivers or barriers in their organizations or societies for getting more WoCB. This will help decision makers in organizations or policymaking bodies to match gender diversity goals to the multiple country-level conditions they need to navigate, hence making a better world together. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the spread of national public policies to increase the percentage of women on boards is often presented using different types of institutional theory logic. However, the importance of the political games influencing these decisions has not received the same attention. In this article, we look beyond the institutional setting by focusing on the role of actors. We explore processes that include who the critical actors that drive and determine these policies are, and what motivates them to push for change. We employ a processual design approach using a longitudinal country-comparative case study exploring the case of Norway, England, Germany and Italy. We map the political games, both inside and outside legislative areas, including the micro-politics among various actors and groups of actors in the selected countries. Data are collected through participation observations, interviews and text analyses. The study contributes by filling important gaps in the literature by embedding the discussion about women on boards in politicking and national public policies and by introducing dynamic perspectives. Finally, by using a processual design approach, we capture the reality of the women on board debates at different points of time and in different actor and motivational contexts. The study has consequences for how policy-makers and businesses may follow up and act, based on the debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Manuscript type Empirical Research Question In the context of the recent introduction of gender representation regulations (quotas) for boards in public limited companies (PLCs) in Norway, this article explores how gender quotas designed to increase the share of women in senior positions are rationalized and/or justified by those who benefit, and asks: what arguments do the beneficiaries of quotas tend to use when discussing their usefulness? Research Findings/Insights Drawing on qualitative interview data from 19 female non-executive board members, the article illustrates how women draw on utility, mainly the 'business case,' and individual justice arguments both in support of quotas and to justify their use in helping women attain board positions. Further, it highlights how issues of merit and of gender are entangled with these arguments in often contradictory ways. In so doing, the article challenges and complicates some of the key critiques of gender quotas often found in the public and academic debates. Theoretical/Academic Implications This article advances theory around the intersection of justice and utility arguments in relation to the use of quotas to increase diversity on boards. Moreover, this article provides empirical support by demonstrating how 'the first wave' of women affected by quotas are legitimizing their role on boards in a context in which their role is in question. In addition, this article advances the literature regarding women on boards by demonstrating the need for a discourse about political strategies, such as quotas on boards, that goes beyond the narrow understanding of the business case that has until now dominated public, political, and academic debates. In particular, this article argues for the need to build on both utility and justice logic when making a case for increasing the share of women on boards. Practical Implications With the current focus on how to increase diversity and the share of women on boards, this study highlights the importance of regulation as well as the importance of reframing the debate using utility and justice lines of arguments rationalized by merit arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]