Do public and political mandated boardroom quotas construct new barriers for women in leadership?

ABSTRACT

This study examined women’s perspective on the public and political mandated boardroom quotas. Further, this study investigated if such directives construct new barriers for women and if it enforces inequality in the gender realm. Data was collected from 45 women around the globe in order to get a preliminary insight on how boardroom quotas are viewed in various countries and if they created new barriers for women (in the business world).

The findings contributed further evidence to support the argument that boardroom quotas create additional barriers for women. While all results of the study are important, we felt it was noteworthy to mention that the participants viewed boardroom quotas as a way of communicating and affirming women’s inability to handle senior positions within the workplace. Moreover, there appears to be a lack of awareness of mandated boardroom quotas. Furthermore, the study acknowledges and strongly suggests that there are many more issues to be addressed around boardroom quotas and how they tie to other elements such as social fairness, equality, boardroom criterion, behavioral change, the environment that fosters ‘genderlessness’ leading across an organisationorganization, the notion of capability merit, and awareness creation on the topic as a whole.

The existing literature on women mandated boardroom quotas focused mainly on what is the impact of gender diversity within the organizations. As McLaughlin, C and Deakin (2011) argued organizational performance are seen as a crucial reason for justifying measures to increase the number of female directors in terms of equality is that relying only on economic arguments can limit and depoliticize the issue of women on boards (McLaughlin, C and Deakin, S. 2011). A strong indication of the importance of this study were all the future research study topics that emerged from the data. Cultural shifts in organisations…..need to occur……

Introduction

The EU is the frontrunner with officially putting a boardroom quota for women in place. This certainly is an international topic as the low representation of women in key leading positions worldwide has been on the forefront of various dialogues for quite some time now. Although one may think that the boardroom quota would assist women, one may also wonder if it perhaps creates more barriers. It may just be a taboo question to ask if this is a positive for women, or if it creates more reservations and serves as a hindrance.

The latest research on the boardroom quota and its outcomes indicates that even after eight years the effect of the quota has not been all that impactful. There are zero women CEOs in Norway’s largest

organizations and the argument is that the quota should be spread throughout the organization in order to truly have an impact on not only the business bottom line, but the representation of women in top positions throughout the company (Lindahl, 2015). Other studies argue that quotas may lead to the perception of “tokenism”, incompetent mandated hires, despite the fact of very capable and qualified women (Paquette, 2014).

Most of the boardroom studies focus mainly on the impact of organizational performance and the change the women bring to the boardrooms, this paper suggests that Boardroom quotas ought to not only focus on organizational performance, but should address social fairness as an outcome when selecting women into Boardroom positions. Moreover, the social fairness aspect of gender quota and gender diversity within the boardroom should aim to foster not only having more women present on boards, but also bring about change in the under-representation of female leaders in leadership positions such as the board chair and as chief executive officers (Ahern & Dittmar 2012; Noon 2007). This study will focus on narrowing the gap in the literature around how women actually feel about the board room quotas, if those mandates could possibly create more barriers for women and how social fairness is discussed.Women in Boardrooms and Performance

The momentum for increasing the number of women on boards of directors is becoming vital within public and political spaces. Indeed, several countries around the globe have mandated gender quotas through the imposition of quotas, while other countries, such as the United States and Australia, have taken notice of the issue and are working to combat this problem through alternative means, such as voluntary codes, regulation and standards which are set either by the government or by industry bodies (Franceschet and Piscopo 2013; Choudhury 2014). The slow pace of change has not gone unnoticed. Yet, despite the individual organization’s apparent lack of interest in increasing the number of women on boards, countries with mandated boardroom quotas continue to couch their initiatives in this area almost exclusively in “economic-based justifications” {Choudhury, 2014 #96@511;Choudhury, 2014 #96}. Indeed, existing research on boardroom quotas focused mainly on the impact of gender quotas on firm performance and to understand relationship of increasing women on boardroom and firm value. For example, {Ahern, 2012 #100@@author-year} argued that the corporate gender quota in Norway had a negative impact on firm value in the short term. Thus, there is a negative impact of increased female representation on firm value. Furthermore, {Matsa, 2013 #98@@author-year} used difference-in-difference and triple-difference strategies to evaluate a panel of Scandinavian companies over 10 years and provide causal evidence that corporate gender quotas led to a short-term loss of profits, largely driven by increased spending on labour.

Complexity of Gender diversity and boardroom quotas

There is a growing consensus within diversity scholarship, that it provides equal opportunity to groups historically excluded from positions of power. The public, worldwide, has a strong interest in ensuring that opportunities are available to all, and that women and minorities entering the labour market are able to fulfil their potential, and that public and private organizations are making full use of the wealth of talented individuals despite their race and gender. The other claim is that diversity will improve organizational processes and performance {Noon, 2007 #122}. This business case for diversity tends to dominate debates because it appeals to a culture steeped in shareholder value as the way for corporate decision making. The latest research on the boardroom quota and its outcomes indicates that even after several years of the introduction of boardroom quotas, the effect of the quota has not been all that

impactful, especially when it came to women in senior management positions in business (Teigen 2012). For example, Norway is known as the frontrunner of boardroom quotas, but, there are still few women CEOs in Norway’s largest organizations and the argument is that the quota should be spread throughout the organization in order to truly have an impact on not only the business bottom line, but the representation of women in top positions throughout the company {Lindahl, 2015 #120}.

Moreover, boardroom quotas draw attention to disruptions and complex oppositions to social change, such as liberation movement, and how this is not only reflective of gender diversity but also of masculine culture of politics. For example, {Patterson, 2013 #103@@author-year} indicate that in Korean, the underrepresentation of women in modern organizations is still based upon cultural norms and practices that may have a negative economic effect on organisations. In addition, scholars such as, {Baldez, 2006 #104@@author-year}, Soklaridis and López (2014), Rutherford (2011) draws attention to how uncertainty about quotas derived from failure to change masculine culture of politics. Thus, quotas are seen to have power to destroy men’s monopoly over candidate positions, and are seen as a tool to reinforce the status quo. It is concluded that the effectiveness in achieving gender quota target is achieved at the expense of maintaining a problematic political status quo {Baldez, 2006 #104}. These cultural norms and beliefs result in insufficient female representation in the public and political spaces {Patterson, 2013 #103;Cho, 2010 #105}. In conclusion, multiple factors have contributed to this situation, including structural and institutional barriers {Norris, 2001 #111}.

Although gender quotas are often seen as a practical solution to women’s underrepresentation, the causes of political gender imbalance are multiple and complex. Much of the gender quotas scholarship has been devoted to the structural and systematic variables restricting women’s access to senior positions and to politics. Researchers argue that cultural values and attitudes do construct barriers for women in leadership and barriers to entry, which makes it difficult to include women’s voice in politics, government and senior positions in organisations {Adams, 2012 #102}. For example, {Norris, 2008 #101@@author-year} document that social norms are related to the representation of women in political leadership across countries. Indeed, elements of the social structure are reasons for the continued existence of the glass ceiling, which keeps women from advancing to top-level leadership positions {Acker, 2009 #123} (Weyer 2007).Therefore, quotas are considered to be compensation for structural barriers that prevent fair competition and construct gender regimes (Dahlerrup, 2003, 2007).

Critique of Gender Quotas

Gender quotas have been introduced as a means of correcting imbalances in representation and have traditionally focused on the underrepresentation of women {Dahlerup, 2006 #112}. Thus, it is assumed that underrepresentation is a problem that affects only women and not men due to the history of gender inequalities. The use of gender neutral language does not conceal the fact that quotas focusing on underrepresentation are effectively quotas for women {Murray, 2014 #110}. However, gender quotas somehow construct stigmatization, tokenism and symbolism and reinforce negative stereotypes about women’s capacity as politicians and leaders {Dahlerup, 2007 #113;Dahlerup, 2006 #112;Franceschet, 2008 #114;Dahlerup, 2010 #115;Franceschet, 2012 #116;Kanter, 1974 #106}. Other studies argue that quotas may lead to the perception of “tokenism”, incompetent mandated hires, despite the fact of very capable and qualified women {Paquette, 2014 #121}.

Researchers argued that gender quotas tend to favour the promotion of inferior women candidates at the expense of more qualified {Dahlerup, 2010 #115;Celis, 2011 #117;Franceschet, 2012 #116}. This

argument is based on the system of meritocratic, which in turn construct fear and unworthiness {O'Brien, 2012 #118}. Women have to often prove that there are good enough. This result in women being undermining their talent, because a woman selected via mandated quota might not be the “best man for the job” but merely the best woman and therefore might lack the experience, appropriate background, and ability to fight for political and economic gains {Murray, 2014 #110}. In addition, even if women do possess these qualities, the association with mandated gender quotas might undermine their talents {O'Brien, 2012 #118}. Moreover, {Acker, 2006 #107@@author-year} and {Kanter, 1977 #119@@author-year} {, #106}path-breaking research, confirmed in multiple subsequent studies, found that token members often encounter social isolation, heightened visibility and pressure to adopt stereotyped roles. In this way, quotas are conceived as creating both opportunities and obstacles to women’s substantive representation, and as a way of perpetuating the status of men as the norm and women as the other {Rhode, 2014 #109;Murray, 2014 #110}. {Dahlerup, 2007 #113@@author-year} ascertains that quotas rule of setting a minimum percentage for women’s representation is seen as a maximum prescription, which tend to construct an informal ‘glass ceiling’ that mostly prevent an increase in women’s representation above the quota level. The glass ceiling constitutes for many {Eagly, 2007 #124;Acker, 2009 #123} an invisible barrier for women, preventing them from moving up the corporate ladder. The inclusion of women at the executive level is seen as a legislative requirement rather than an opportunity for an organisation to capture a competitive advantage.

Participants

Email invitations along with an Informed Consent form were emailed to a total of 120 women, of which 45 women actually participated in the online survey. The industry the participants work in ranged from Healthcare, Technology Sector, Energy & Utilities, Consumer Business, Education, Government, Professional Services, Manufacturing, to Publishing, Media, Hospitality, Construction, Retail, and Graphic Design. The majority of respondents worked Iin the Education, Healthcare, and Professional Services sector.

Respondent positions varied from Department Head, Executive, Freelancer, Consultant, Owner, Sales Manager, PhD Student, Coach, Director, Administrator, to Secretary, Faculty, Council Member, Accounts Administrator, Assistant Registrar, Senior Manager, Engineer, and Project Manager, Office Manager, and Co-Director. Thus, a wide variety of job responsibilities and functions were represented here. Participants have spent an average of 6.7 years in their current positions.Average age and the country participants worked in are presented in the images below:

Image 1.1: Average Age of Participants

Australia

Banladesh

BelgiumChina

France

Germany

India

Malaysia

Singapore

South Africa

Switzerla

nd

UK and North

ern Ireland

United States o

f Americ

a02468

10121416

12

12

12

7

1 1

14

24

6

In what Country Do You Work?

Country

Parti

cipa

nts

Image 1.2: Country participants work in

6

18

17

3

Participants

25-3435-4445-5455-64

Method & Analysis

A qualitative method was applied to this study, as the researchers wanted to explore, learn and understand attitudes and beliefs about the research topic in more detail (Babbie, 1993; Marshall & Rossman, 1999) and capture verbatim statements from the participants. A written open-ended online self-report survey questionnaire was prepared as an instrument and set up via survey monkey in order to reach participations spread around the globe. This also allowed the participants to share responses freely on their own time, in their own context, sharing what and how they feel about the topic, making their contribution to this research of high value.

Given that open-ended responses provided the researchers with large amount of data that needed to be coded in a reasonable time frame, this qualitative study was held on a small scale (with plans to conduct a second large-scale study in the future).

In addition to providing their demographic information, participants were invited to respond to the following questions: (1) What do you think of boardroom quotas for women?; (2) What do you like most about them? (3) What do you like least about them? (4) What do you think the general public thinks of boardroom quotas for women? (5) How do you think men perceive these boardroom quotas? (6) Do you think that boardroom quotas have made a difference for general advancement of women in the corporate world? If yes, how? If not, why not? (7) How do you think the board room quotas are perceived in your country? (8) Do you think boardroom quotas could potentially pose new barriers for women? If so How? If not, why not? (9) Do you think that board room quotas address social fairness as an outcome when selecting women into Boardroom positions? (10) How do you think public and politically mandated quotas should address social fairness? (11) How can the overall under-representation of female leaders throughout an organization be addressed by having boardroom quotas in place? (12) Do you think boardroom quotas perpetuate or solve gender inequality as we know it? If yes, How? If not, why not? (13) How do you define success of boardroom representation of women? Should it be a descriptive change (numbers) or a substantive change (culture)? (14) Do you think public and political measures affect women's roles in corporate business? If so, how? If not, why not? The actual data analysis began upon the downloading of the participant responses from survey monkey. The volume of the data totaled 25 pages. In order to systematically analyze the data, content analysis was applied. This allowed the researchers to condense large amounts of raw data into categories or themes in order to help the researcher better understand and present what the participants were saying. A categorical-content method was applied as explained by Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber (1998), as it allowed to identify categories or themes that become visible when reviewing or reading data. Basically, all categories or themes are obtained from the respondents contributing answers they shared in the online survey when answering open-ended questions during this study. This also gave the opportunity to uncover common themes among all the participants in regard to their views and beliefs on the topic. Pages containing the data were read 6 times when coding for themes as they emerged from the readings.Results

This section will discuss and present findings of the data collection and analysis of this study toward answering the question “Do public and political mandated boardroom quotas construct new barriers for women in leadership?” Some of the Key Categories that emerged from the data are represented in image 1.3 below.

Image 1.3: Key Categories

NOTE

(1)What do you think of boardroom quotas for women?

The majority of the women felt that having boardroom quotas in place are positive and good. Some said “it is good mandate for organisations to follow”…”and that they are a good idea to have in place”. The above excerpt suggested that boardroom quotas influence gender balance within the organisations. Indeed, the Norwegian experience reveals that a quota is the key to a successful implementation of change in terms of gender equality. Not only does it create the pressure needed for fundamental change but it also triggers a public debate at the core of which are questions of gender equality in wider society (Storvik and Teigen, 2010; Teigen, 2012).

Another key reply here was that mandates are a ‘must have’. Participants strongly voiced that they are “an absolute must” and “a must have so that we can push more women in higher positions” and that it is “the only way forward…”. Evidence suggests that companies with a strong female representation at board and top management level perform better than those without and that gender-diverse boards have a positive impact on performance. It is clear that boards make better decisions where a range of voices, drawing on different life experiences, can be heard. That mix of voices must include women (Ahern and Dittmar 2012, Pande 2003)

Another significant category here was Tokenism. Participants voiced that there is a risk to create tokenism. Some said that “quotas may work if women are not used as tokens”. Risk was mentioned as well. Kanter’s (1977) three tenets of token status are evident in the stories of these women participants. Visibility as a woman token in boardroom space is twofold: they are ascribed as having both privilege and disadvantage within the realm of the mandated quotas, but stigmatized beyond it. In contrast to the

male dominants, women are perceived as achieving more in the form of podium placements and higher scores. Finally, beyond the mandated quotas, women attempt to assimilate the best they can into more masculine spaces or identities (i.e., hybrid masculinities). The researchers argue that, diversity must ultimately extend beyond tokenism, and corporations must be held more accountable for their progress (Rhode and Packel 2014). Token members are often marginalized as representing the "woman's" or the "minority's" point of view, as if it were a monolithic position (Kanter1977). Thus, tokenism may make it more difficult for women and minorities to be heard on an equal basis with other board members. Outsiders also may have limited opportunities to influence group decisions, particularly in the context of corporate boards where much of the real decision making takes place outside of official meetings and token members are excluded from informal socializing (Stevenson and Radin 2009).

Participants felt that “risk is being placed into position because of being a woman instead of being competent” and that “there is a risk of perception of the ‘quota candidate’ diluting merit and create barriers for deserving candidates”, or the risk of “creating barriers for deserving candidates”. Although quotas may be effective in increasing the presence of women on boards, critics argue that quotas undermine the principle of merit, with many women believing they will be viewed as tokens when they are hired to fulfill a quota (Adriaanse and Schofield 2014).

It is also significant to mention that some women were unaware of the quota concept as a whole. Some stated that “I am unfortunately not aware of there being a boardroom quota and have not come across any information about it”. Another shared “I am not sure what the quotas are. It is good to have women involved, but having an exact number may not be the right solution”. Only a few were not in favor of quotas by stating that they “disagree” with having quotas in place. Another stated that “I'm not in favor of any quotas, however all bias should be removed”.

Overall, there was also a strong notion that quotas, as one participant put it “are a double edged sword”. Participants voiced that putting a number in place was not the answer. Some said that “women shouldn’t be kept at a minimum quota”, and, and others said that quotas “provide leverage for women”, “wake leaders up to inequality”, and “helps to create gender balance”, as well as “helps to build women’s confidence”. The other side of that sword are those risk mentioned as a category earlier in this section. Basically, as one of the participants shared, quotas are seen as a “beginning, and effort at gap closing, but not the end of the trail”. In other words, quotas are not necessarily the answer of greater women board room representation.

(2) What do you like most about them

When participants were asked (2) What do you like most about them, the majority of participants felt that it increases female representation and leadership in the boardroom. Some participants felt that “it ensures women in the boardroom”, and that by having quotas in place “women are given a place regardless of bias”. Participants also felt strong about “a woman’s perspective” being represented and “being a part of strategic planning and corporate activities”. A significant finding was around gender and equality. Participants shared that with quotas in place “gender is not a barrier in leadership”. Another said “it awakens people to diversity issues”, “that they promote equality”, “that they “redress inequalities of the past” and that quotas “bring a fair balance to leadership and professionalism”. Participants also strongly voiced that quotas provide women with opportunities. Mandated quotas have “opened doors previously closed by men”. Another woman shared that they are “good because they open up opportunities for women”, and “that they women get a chance regardless of bias or stereotypes”.

Another category that came to the forefront was that of behavioral change. Matsa and Miller (2013) showed that the presence of more female directors on Norwegian corporate boards is associated with fewer employee layoffs, higher labor costs, and lower profits. Similarly, using plant-level data in the US, Tate and Yang (2012) find that female CEOs help cultivate more female-friendly corporate environments, with smaller wage gaps between genders. Some participants said that mandates “force a change in behavior”, and that they “force compliance by making provisions for females”. The creating of awareness was voiced in that quotas help to “create awareness of diversity issues”, that they help “create more diversity in general”, and that “more awareness on the topic needs to be generated” in the future. Other themes that emerged were around the “influence of policy outcome” due to women being represented in boardrooms. Existing empirical evidence shows that female executives are more cautious than male executives in making important corporate decisions (Huang and Kisgen, 2013 and Levi et al., 2014). Female board directors are more diligent monitors and demand more audit efforts than male directors (Adams and Ferreira, 2009 and Gul et al., 2008). In addition, female directors bring different perspectives and experiences into the boardroom, which help improve the quality of board decisions and enhance the legitimacy of firm practices (Hillman et al., 2007).

Boardroom quotas also challenging the norm as a participant voiced that “an all-male room of decision-makers deciding on all genders is beginning to be challenged”. Finally, some of the participants who are not aware of the boardroom quota mandate voiced their lack of information here as well.

(3) What do you like least about them?

The majority of participants felt very strongly about boardroom quotas having their focus is on gender not ability. In other words, as participants shared that quotas may “get the less qualified people on board just to fill a quota”. Quotas may bring “bias in candidate selection”, that “not the best candidate will be appointed”. As one participant put it nicely “in this day and age it should be about the most qualified and right person for the job, not about gender, and possibly placing a less qualified/component person on the board just to fill a quota”. “Women need to be chosen based on merit, not quota”. The proof of worth and ability was another significant theme the majority of participants felt strongly about. Participants voiced their concern that mandates “are needed for things to change”, that “women should not need quotas’ they should achieve positions purely on merit”. Others stated that quotas “give the impression that women are intellectually not suitable without the crutch of quotas”, “that most of the time talent and capability are not considered for a worthy position”, that “women may be included only for compliance and not because of their voice”.

Some participants also felt that quotas create more barriers. Quotas “may create distortion”, “be quite pressurizing”, “create an unfair advantage to women”, especially if “women don’t assert themselves”. Quotas “will deepen the biases further”, “they are used to keep numbers of women in board rooms at a minimum”, and “men might think that women joined the boardroom because of the quota – not because they are competent”; with this last one being closely tied to the previous theme as well. Thus, quotas may put an appointed woman in a hostile environment in which the other board members view her as primarily a ‘quota-filling member’ rather than an individual appointed on merit (Casey et al. 2011). Moreover, as some participants added “there are many loop holes to get around them” and quotas “don’t solve the root problem”, In other words, barriers and distortions may remain unless addressed effectively. Therefore, quotas are considered to be compensation for structural barriers that prevent fair competition and construct gender regimes (Dahlerrup, 2003, 2007). One comment worth mentioning here is the fact that “women may not want to be on boards”, which is a comment that may

deserve further mentioning in the future research section of this study. Only a few mentioned they didn’t have enough info on boardroom quotas, thus couldn’t really comment on disliking them.

(4) What do you think the general public thinks of boardroom quotas for women?

The majority of participants felt that the general public is unaware of the topic or doesn’t understand it. Participants voiced that the general public “fails to understand why the inequality exists”, that “the general public doesn’t even know what is meant by the term “boardroom quotas for women”, that “most people still feel the woman’s place is in the kitchen”. Others stated that “the general public is minimally aware. Even though I have a PhD, I only know by way of reading the New York Times”. This clearly indicates overlapping with themes in other parts of this research where awareness creation was one of the emerging categories. Another theme the majority of women shared was that of communicating women’s inability. In other words, the general public may perceive the boardroom quota to communicate that women are not capable and require a quota mandate to move into leading or boardroom positions.

Some participants felt that “they feel women have less experience so quotas will make less competent women come in power” and “most of the time the belief is that there is a woman because the rules state a woman needs to be there, or due to bias from senior management. It is generally never related to capability”. And as one woman states “in India, the general opinion is that it will only favor the already favored and it will dilute he meritocracy criterion for getting to the highest office”. A large number of participants also voiced that the general public may think the topic is not important and ignore it altogether. One of the women said that the “public perception is that this is not an important issue, it is low on the agenda of the public discussion”. Others said “I don’t believe they care”, “the majority of people don’t have an opinion” and yet another shared that the public may feel it is “another regulation”.

Another theme that stood out was that the public had mixed views on the topic. Some said they “may have mixed reactions” and “mixed feelings”. Some of the participants voiced that quotas are seen as negative by sharing that “there seems to still be a negative vibe around this area” and that “living in a men’s world, people are hesitant toward it (the topic of quotas)”. Yet another woman voiced that she didn’t “think the general opinion (on the topic) is favorable”. A few felt that it depends on other variables, such as “which country”, and peoples “backgrounds and gender”. One example to the country variable was one participant’s comments stating that “in Germany we think we do not need a quota to feel equal”. Finally there were a few who felt they were not sure.

(5) How do you think men perceive these boardroom quotas?

The majority of women felt that men have a negative stance towards women in the boardroom. One participant said that men may say “nobody helped them rise (which is not true considering the buddy network)”. Another felt that “they are threatened by women and do anything to belittle them in order to remind them that they need to rush home and cook for their husbands”. Others felt that men “don’t like the idea” of women in the boardroom, that they “resent their presence”, “are an unnecessary evil” and “sexist”. Another key category that came to the forefront is that it depends on the man’s personality and openness. Participants said that it “depends if the man is a male chauvinist”, “how

open men are to ideas”, and that “it depends on the man. I think some want diversity and others will feel that there is a threat of power”.

Several participants felt that women’s competence will be questioned and judged. Respondents voiced that “if she is out of her depth, we all as women get especially harshly judged”. This notion ties back to the category of proof and worth in an earlier section of this study. Others said that “men might think a woman joined the boardroom because of the quota and not because of competency”, and that this “raises concerns if it pulls in less qualified females over qualified males for the job”. Some respondents thought that men’s view may also depend on other variables, such as “depending on (the man’s) age and perspective”, “which country” he is from, and it “may depend on the company culture, type of organization” for example. One participant felt that “in general, men and women are not very sensitized to this gender disparity”, and another thought that “a small percentage may grasp the importance; likely a greater percentage worries about the change and its impact on the current “ways” and profit margins”.

(6) Do you think that boardroom quotas have made a difference for general advancement of women in the corporate world? If yes, how? If not, why not?

A large majority felt that, indeed, quotas have made a difference for general advancement of women in business, with the main reason being competence. As one participant shared “we see more woman taking up leadership positions and work hard to prove that they're capable and deserve more challenging responsibilities”. Others said that “it balanced the boardroom”, “and that after time, women will be seen for their worth, and not the quota”. Opportunity was another theme several women felt was making a difference for women by providing “leadership advancement opportunities for women” and gave women “presence to voice their thoughts”. Quotas give women “visibility as they get more women noticed”. Some participants felt that the quotas helped to bring change by “instituting change as a whole”, and introducing change “with the creation of new policies which bring about new behavior”. Changing behavior was also a theme that came up earlier as a category under another question. So again, we can see proof of interconnection.

Quite a few participants did feel that the quotas did not make a difference towards the general advancement of women in business. Some felt that “there is still a glass ceiling for women”, that women “seem to be still underrepresented”. Indeed, Eagly and Carli (2007) Acker, (2009) argued that glass ceiling constitutes invisible barrier for women, preventing them from moving up the corporate ladder. The inclusion of women at the executive level is seen as a legislative requirement rather than an opportunity for an organisations to capture a competitive advantage. One participant felt that there is a balance for both genders because “companies have increasingly created a more balanced and supportive environment for senior leaders, whether male or female, to flourish”. A small number participants where not sure or didn’t know if it made a difference or if it didn’t.

(7) How do you think the board room quotas are perceived in your country?

The majority of respondents felt that quotas are perceived as negative as “it is treated as a policy/compliance requirement and not viewed in the spirit it was formed”. One participant shared that “in Germany it is not perceived as good”. Others said that while it is a part of politics one is “yet to see a difference in the corporate world” and that it is viewed “as a somewhat archaic instrument of

feminism”. Other responses were brief, such as simply stating “negative” and “not good”. Others simply replied with quotas being perceived as “good” or “fine”. Another theme here was the mixed perception response, such as “there are mixed perceptions”, and “mixed reactions”. Yet other participants felt that they were not sure or didn’t know. The category people don’t know or understand it also came up here in that “the general mindset is that this I not a priority issue” and that “the majority of people don’t have a view” around this quota topic. Again, some interconnection with the earlier question on how the general public perceived the board room quota topic.

(8) Do you think boardroom quotas could potentially pose new barriers for women? If so How? If not, why not?

A strong majority of respondents felt that boardroom quotas could possibly pose new barriers for women. One of the key themes that came out of the data was capability and merit. Some respondents said that “women could be looked down upon as not have made it on merit” and that quotas “might make the successful candidate or general public feel they got the job just for the company to meet quota regardless of their ability”. Another participant felt that “some women may not be qualified or even have a desire to be on a board and may be talked into it to meet the quota”. Another theme that emerged here is that quotas create more pressure. Some respondents said that “it could put undue pressure on women to exceed when they have no need” and that “competition from the male counterpart will increase creating more work pressure”. Another category that surfaced was the boardroom position criteria. Here some participants questioned “does it mean more scrutiny on who becomes board level? Is their operative experience more under scrutiny? Themes that we have heard in earlier sections of this study are tokens “reduce women to showcase models/tokens of change”, and the cap on quota “quotas can pose caps on women” and “companies could say ‘we have done our part; we have met the quota; we don’t have to consider more”.

A group of the participants felt that boardroom quotas do not pose new barriers for women. Some felt that quotas would actually “jump-start equality”, and that “equality would be enforced”. Another participant voiced that “it would mean that women feel that they are less equal than men, which is actually not the case in Germany”. Another theme that emerged here is assertiveness in that quotas “makes women more assertive to prove themselves and strive for excellence in their appointment responsibilities”. This is closely tied to the next category, opportunities. Here a participant stated that quotas “will open doors and break glass ceilings”.

Yet another element emerged, namely that of forceful quota filling. Here a respondent voiced that quotas “may ‘force’ companies to forgo the ‘best candidate for the job’ approach in order to fill a quota”. In other words, the quota criterion may prevent the hiring of the best fit, regardless of gender. While a group of women voted that boardroom quotas do not pose new barriers, the category that developed out of their responses is that they were unsure. One respondent voiced that “they may in industries where there are more women, like education, languages, areas of healthcare and social studies”. Others said that they were “not sure if male dominated companies are ready for quotas” and that “they possibly could pose barriers depending on the quotas. The more specific the quotas are, such as not asking for gender diversity but also diversity in ethnicity, age, race, etc, the more some employees get crowded out. That would include women”. This particular comment on the specificity of quotas may also be linked to the boardroom position criterion category that emerged from the data in a previous section of the paper.

(9) Do you think that board room quotas address social fairness as an outcome when selecting women into Boardroom positions?

There appears to nearly be a tie in opinions here. Almost half of the respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question, the other half no. The group of women who answered yes said that “they make a contribution to social fairness”, “yes, in some countries where women are treated less equal”, and that “women’s voices in the boardroom ensures decisions taken also accommodate women in the social landscape”. Another woman shared that while she believes quotas to address social fairness, ‘that this in itself is an issue by trying too hard to tackle social fairness through quotas”.

Some of the respondents in the group that responded with a ‘no’ to this question shared that “it is still not fair as the numbers are low, and once the number is reached, people think they should now fill up remaining positions with men, even though qualified and experienced women may still be available”. Another participant voice that “quotas don't help in balancing gender inequality. In India, we have learnt that from our quota system for socially backward masses. It hasn't worked and whatever, 'upliftment' that we see for them is despite having the quota. It's not a fair playing field. Boardroom needs merit and not forced acknowledgement of a bias”.

There were a few who felt that ‘sometimes or possibly’ quotas may address social fairness. One respondent was firm when stating that “it is not social fairness; it is about treating men and women equal”. Yet another woman voiced that they only contribute “if women are paid the same as their male colleagues” and that “it depends on what purpose quotas were introduced in the first place”. Another theme that emerged from the comments was culture change, which also ties in to the category of behavioral change that emerged earlier in this results section, again showing interrelatedness of various themes, if not all. One of the respondents commented that, while quotas may impact social fairness, “they may help drive cultural change in the workplace. Indeed, women’s participation on boards and in executive ranks may promote more effective cultural and practical change in support of greater representation of women in leadership (Villers 2010). And diverse boards can lead to higher performance” However, most of the studies are not conclusive, and one of the main difficulties is in trying to find a direct correlation between gender diversity and firm performance. For example, other researchers claim that diversity tend to improve organizational processes and performance (Noon, 2007; Torchia, et al 2011; Chapple and Humphrey 2014). While Marinova et al.2015 argued that there is no relation between board diversity and firm performance. Another participant shared that “there will be changes in interaction culture, which also includes are more empathic approach; in the end, that means more social fairness”.

(10) How do you think public and politically mandated quotas should address social fairness?

Participants did share some ideas on how quotas could address social fairness, while another group felt that quotas are not the answer to addressing social fairness concerns. The respondents who felt that quotas are the answer to address social fairness shared that “it could start with education and succession planning to develop females for the role rather than setting them (and the board) up for

failure if they are ONLY focusing on gender quotas” and that focus ought to be on “merit with gender fairness”. Others voiced that “by addressing issues of abuse and marginalization of women is dealt with and addressed in all forms” and by “following through and taking action” would be a way to address social fairness. Other women felt that by putting a “transparent process into place with the public’s input” and an “equal mix of men and women decide together” how social fairness can be addressed.The group that felt that quotas are not the answer to address social fairness voiced that the believe is in “meritocracy and everyone being given the same platform to pursue their goals, get that boardroom position”, that boardroom quotas “cannot address social fairness” and that “social fairness is a mindset, quotas are not the answer but they show signs of political will and create awareness of the issue”. One participate was very detailed in her sharing on why quotas aren’t the answer to social fairness. She said that

“Quotas can never address fairness because it is an unfair practice by itself. To address social fairness, we have to look at the causal effects and try to remove or address them. Like policies that discriminate, laws that encourage malpractice in social areas, awareness and education of good and far social practices. The efforts largely have to be at the grass root, at the bottom of the pyramid. For e.g. organizations that have a fair representation of women at all levels including at the top, have championed gender neutrality and made their policies in a way that all genders without bias can be successful in their career. They have prospered and have a healthy gender ratio without having to stipulate any quota. Quota is the most alienating form of discrimination”.

Only a few respondents where not sure “in part because I am not sure I agree with quotas” and because they questioned “how social fairness is defined”.

(11) How can the overall under-representation of female leaders throughout an organization be addressed by having boardroom quotas in place?

There is one group that thinks the overall under-representation of female leaders throughout the organization can be addressed, and yet another group of respondents who thinks it cannot be addressed.

Respondents who believe the issue can be addressed suggested the “use of a percentage allocation as set by management and supported by policy”, by overall “positive action”, “by building and implementing a long term strategy to mentor young women at the start of their careers”, and by “requesting quotas across all levels”.

The group who believed that the under-representation of female leaders throughout an organization cannot be addressed argued that “it cannot be addressed by quotas”, “that quotas aren’t the right strategy”, and that it is “more of a political statement”. One participant voiced that

“it depends on the sector and the company and whether it is relevant at all. This is an issue if the proportion of women in senior managerial positions massively deviates from the gender profile of the company. This may suggest a glass ceiling. I woul steer away from quoatas only, the average time it takes for female to progress vs male colleagues... Even companies with not bad quotas only have women who have taken 5 times the length of men to progress, then this is just as bad!”

Another category that arose from the data that could help address the under-representation of female leaders across the organization is women as role models. Some respondents said that “women lead by

example, become role models and will have others follow” and “encourage other women to aspire to these roles”. (12) Do you think boardroom quotas perpetuate or solve gender inequality as we know it? If yes, HOW? If not, why not?

Respondents were split in opinion here as well. Some of the respondents said quotas perpetuate gender inequality as we know it. One participants voiced that quotas increase disrespect. She said that “respect between sexes grow”. Yet another shared that “It may perpetuate gender inequality and breed resentment, men may feel that they are being passed over because of the need to fill a quota”. Others said that while they felt quotas perpetuate, they also “help with awareness” and “may show others that women can be leaders”. Others were torn by stating that while it “may solve the challenge of gender inequity” quotas also “perpetuate inequality”.

Another set of respondents strongly felt that boardroom quotas do not perpetuate gender inequality. Some shared “gender equality is much deeper than boardroom quotas”. It would appear that this question raises the perception of the double edged sword.Moreover, several participants commented that change is needed first by saying that “fundamental change in the way men perceive women in leadership gender inequality will remain” and “by changing behaviors we should begin to see a change in attitude”.We must also note that the notion of “not getting at the underlying problem of why there is inequality” to begin with.

(13) How do you define success of boardroom representation of women? Should it be a descriptive change (numbers) or a substantive change (culture)?

The majority of respondents felt that it needs to be a substantive change, namely a culture change, which ties to earlier identified themes of culture and behavior change earlier in the results section of this study. Another group of participants felt that the change ought to be both descriptive and substantive. It is to be noted that other respondent remarks were made to the first part of the question, attempting to define success, yet the answers were too weak in content to draw any conclusions. No one really gave a definition of “defining success of boardroom rep of women”. Our takeaway from this is that it may have been better to make this two separate questions.

(14) Do you think public and political measures affect women's roles in corporate business? If so, how? If not, why not?

The large majority of participants felt that public and political measures do affect women’s roles in business. Respondents shared that “Measures that are more inclusive of a woman's role outside of work, creating a supportive environment that will enable women to juggle their family commitments with work responsibilities”, “effect women’s roles, by giving them a chance”, and that “there should be a deliberate effort to force the corporate business to adhere”. Corporate Culture and change were additional themes that also emerged here. One woman said that”public and political change will definitely impact corporate culture” and another felt that “all changes even when mandated meet resistance and subculture efforts to circumvent. It’s a process that requires a balance of patience and impatience. Through small windows opening from the outside, important doors on the inside might

now be approached. The measures must ‘stay alive’ and progress”. Another intriguing statement made by one of the participants was the question of the boardroom quota concept becoming obsolete. She feels that the measures have affected women’s roles now and in the past. However, she states “I believe they have served their role but are starting to be outdated”. Certainly a question to ponder over.

Limitations

Although we were able to get a view on the topic from participants around the world, a limitation in this study is the sample size, which somewhat limits the ability to generalize the findings and conclusions of the research to the general female population around the globe. However, the application of a qualitative method certainly allowed for detailed and in-depth narratives from the participants and will certainly add exceptional and new data to the field of women in leadership, as well as the boardroom quota. Moreover, it will certainly be a stimulus for further studies around the topic.

An additional bias and limitation to this study may have been the language barrier for some of the participants in that they may have not been able to understand every question as the survey questionnaire was composed in English. Answers to some of the questions might have been different if the questionnaire was given in the participants’ native language, as responses may have been captured in even greater depth.

Another limitation worth mentioning is the use of online surveys, as some of their response rates tend to be on the low side and respondents may be slow in getting the survey completed. Nevertheless, they hold their advantages as one is able to obtain quick replies from participants, especially if surveys are carefully designed.

We also discovered that some of the questions may have been more effective if worded slightly different to possibly reach a more refined answer from the participants. Moreover, after reviewing the data, some of the questions may have been more effectively answered if applied in a separate study. This would have also shortened our survey and may have impacted the time the participants needed to complete the survey. We did notice that on average 17 out of 45 participants didn’t answer the questions. Thus, this may be interrelated, and it certainly presents itself as a limitation here.

Future Research

While this study certainly contributed further evidence to support the argument that boardroom quotas create additional barriers for women, it also acknowledge that there are many more issues to be addressed around boardroom quotas and how they tie to other elements such as social fairness, equality, boardroom criterion, behavioral change, the environment that fosters ‘genderlessness’ leading across an organisation, the notion of capability merit, and awareness creation on the topic as a whole.A strong indication of the importance of this study were all the future research study topics that emerged from the data.

(1) Women around the globe are unaware of the boardroom quota concept. Thus, more awareness needs to be created by conducting more research and sharing findings.

(2) Women don’t seem to assert themselves enough. There is a link to the confidence factor, about having a voice, and the fact that there is still pressure out there to proof the ‘norm’ wrong.

(3) What deserves further mentioning is the fact that not all women may not want to be in a key leadership position or in the boardroom. This would need to be considered as the push for women in key roles continues.

(4) The question “how do men perceive the boardroom quota” needs to be posed to a male respondent population in order to compare and contrast responses from both men and women. The findings may help to build bridges, or dilute the perception some women have on how men perceive the boardroom quota. Moreover, the experience each individual participant will bring when it comes to this question may vary. Thus, the degree of feelings and responses may vary as well. Some women may not feel that there is a need for a quota because they have not experienced these differences; some women may have had negative experiences with other women instead of men.

(5) What about the organizational environment? What type of environment do organisations need to create for it to be balanced and supportive for all leaders and contemporaries, regardless if male or female? Are there organisations out there who have such an environment in place, and if so, what did they do? How do they maintain it?

(6) When considering boardroom quota barriers for women, what about the increasing pressure due to competition from other women (not just men)? Does that create an additional barrier? Moreover, what about the fact that some women may not want to be promoted, but may be forced into it (even by female colleagues) because organisations want to meet compliance and try to bypass a search for the ‘best fit’?

(7) The entire notion about the boardroom criteria needs to be looked into further. What is the critera? Is there more scrutiny on who becomes a boardroom member? Who decides this?

(8) Considering the boardroom criteria, one must pose the question around the specificity of quotas, and how diversity (is it age, ethnicity, race, etc), in general, is unpacked and defined in general. Especially if the quota shifts from women to a diverse representation instead. And one may ponder if that may be another approach to move away the focus on “Women boardroom criteria”.

(9) Then the is the phenomenon of boardroom quotas addressing social fairness. The understanding of boardroom quotas is to construct social fairness of gender inequality as expressed in relation to women on boards as well as to use it as basis for social change that improves women’s broader societal position. Indeed, half of the participants felt that boardroom quotas do reasonable contribute to social fairness.

However, it is noted that some participants’ arguments about contexts do not fit so clearly. One might argue that the primary function of the corporate board, for example, is not to act as a forum for representing or reflecting societal groups but rather to manage an organisations effectively. Maybe the future study should explore if there is still a need to adopt quotas to correct segregation patterns irrespective of primary functions in such a context. This lack of equality is considered especially problematic because the talents of half the workforce are not being utilized fully. The existing literature indicate that across the globe, women struggle to get a place on the boards of large public companies and still take home less pay than their male counterparts (Villiers 2010). The researchers suggest that future research should focus on explores the possibility of introducing legislative gender quotas that will consider not only social fairness but gender equality across all levels and pay within organisations and public companies.

(10)This study also suggests that the question around How do you think public and politically mandated quotas should address social fairness? In the literature, it is argued that boardroom quotas not focus only on organizational performance but should also address social fairness as an outcome when selecting women into Boardroom positions. As suggested that elements of the social structure are reasons for the continued existence of the glass ceiling, which keeps women from advancing to top-level leadership positions (Weyer 2007). Moreover, the social fairness aspect of gender quota and gender diversity within the boardroom should aim to foster not only having more women present on boards, but also bring about change in the under-representation of female leaders in leadership positions such as the board chair and as chief executive officers (Ahern & Dittmar 2012; Noon 2007). Thus, social structures are preventing organisations from changing. This includes ideals around the nature of work and what it means to be a “good employee”, both inside and outside the workplace. We would encourage further research into possible ways of enhancing and embedding the new social structures as they relate to women’s work, so that greater social significance can be attributed to the ways in which women choose to work, and working women can be credited with greater general competence. Our research has also shown the continued prevalence in modern society of roles allocated on the basis of gender.

(11)Finally, when thinking about if public and political measures affect women’s roles in corporate business one must wonder, as one participant put it, if the boardroom quota has served its role but are now becoming outdated. This is certainly a question worth investigating.

Bibliography

Abdullah S, Ismail K and Nachum L. (2016) Does Having Women on Boards Create Value? The Impact of Societal Perceptions and Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets. Strategic Management Journal 37: 466-476.

Acker J. (2006) Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender & Society 20: 441-464.

Acker J. (2009) From Glass Ceiling to Inequality Regimes. Sociologie Du Travail 51: 199-217.Adams R and Ferreira D. (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and

performance. Journal of financial economics 94: 291-309.Adams R and Kirchmaier T. (2012) From Female Labor Force Participation to Boardroom Gender

Diversity.Adriaanse J and Schofield T. (2014) The Impact of Gender Quotas on Gender Equality in Sport

Governance. Journal of Sport Management 28: 485-497.Ahern K and Dittmat A. (2012) The Changing of The Boards: The Impact On Firm Valuation Of Mandated

Female Board Representation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127: 137-197.Babbie E. R. (2013) The basics of social research: Cengage Learning.Babbie, E. R. (1973) Survey Research Methods. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Belmont, CA.Baldez L and College D. (2006) The Pros and Cons of Gender Quota Laws: What Happens When You Kick

Men Out and Let Women In? Politics & Gender 2: 101-128.Casey C, Skibnes R and Pringle J. (2011) Gender equality and corporate governance: Policy strategies in

Norway and New Zealand. Gender. Work & Organization 18: 613-630.

Celis K, Krook M and Meier P. (2011) The Rise of Gender Quota Laws: Expanding the Spectrum of Determinants for Electoral Reform. West European Politics 34: 514-530.

Chapple L and Humphrey J. (2014) Does Board Gender Diversity Have a Financial Impact? Evidence Using Stock Portfolio Performance. Journal of Business Ethics 122: 709-723.

Cho J, Kwon T and Ahn J. (2010) Half Success, Half Failure in Korean Affirmative Action: An Empirical Evaluation on Corporate Progress. Women’s Studies International Forum 33: 264-273.

Choudhury B. (2014) New Rationales for Women on Boards. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 34: 51.Dahlerup D. (2006) What are the Effects of Electoral Gender Quotas?: From Studies of Quota Discourses

to Research on Quota. Paper for the International Political Science Association's World Conbgress. Fukuoka: Research Commitee 19.

Dahlerup D. (2007) Electoral Gender Quotas: Between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result. Representation 43: 73-92.

Dahlerup D and Freidenvall L. (2010) Judging Gender Quotas: Predictions and Results. Policy and Politics 38: 407-425.

Eagly A and Carli L. (2007) Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review 85: 3–71.Franceschet S, Krook M and Piscopo J. (2012) The Impact of Quotas on bWomen's Descriptive,

Substantive and Symbolic Representation, New York: Oxford University Press.Franceschet S and Piscopo J. (2008) Equality, Democracy, and the Broadening and Deepening of Gender

Quotas. Politics & Gender 4: 393-425.Franceschet S and Piscopo J. (2013) Equality, Democracy, and the Broadening and Deepening of Gender

Quotas. Politics & Gender 9: 310-316.Gul F, Srinidhi B and Ng A. (2011) Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock

prices? . Journal of Accounting and Economics 5: 314-338.Hillman A, Shropshire C and Cannella A. (2007) Organizational predictors of women on corporate

boards. Academy of Management Journal 50: 941-952.Huang J and Kisgen D. (2013) Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives overconfident relative

to female executives? Journal of Financial Economics, 108: 822-839.Kanter R. (1974) The Problem of Tokenism.Kanter R. (1977) Men and women of the corporation, New York: Basic Books.Kogut B, Colomer J and Belinky M. (2014) Structural equality at the top of the corporation: Mandated

quotas for women directors. Strategic Management Journal 35: 891-902.Levi M, Li K and Zhang F. (2014) Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate

Finance 28: 185-200.Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber (1998) Narrative Research: Reading, Analysis, and Interpretation. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Lindahl B. (2015) Norway’s female boardroom quotas: what has been the effect? Nordic Labour Journal.

Marinova J, Plantenga J and Remery C. (2015) Gender diversity and firm performance: evidence from Dutch and Danish boardrooms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 26: 1-14.

Marshall, C., Rossman, G.B. (1999) Designing Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Matsa D and Miller A. (2013) A Female Style in Corporate Leadership? Evidence from Quotas. American

Economic Journal: Applied Economics 136: 137-138 Murray R. (2014) Quotas for Men: Reframing Gender Quotas as a Means of Improving Representation

for All. American Political Science Review 108: 520-532.Noon M. (2007) The Fatal Flaws of Diversity and The Business Case for Ethnic Minorities. Work,

Employment & Society 21: 773-784.

Norris P and Inglehart R. (2001) Women and Democrfacy: Cultural Obstacles to Equal Representation. Journal of Democracy 12: 126-140.

Norris P and Inglehart R. (2008) Cracking the Marble Ceiling: Cultural barriers facing women leaders. Harvard University Report.

O'Brien D. (2012) Quotas and Qualification in Uganda. In: Franceschet S, Krook M and Piscopo J (eds) The Impact of Quotas. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pande R. (2003) Can mandated political representation increase policy influence for disadvantaged minorities? Theory and evidence from India. The American Economic Review 93: 1132-1151.

Paquette D. (2014) Why American Women Hate Board Quotas. . The Washington Post.Patterson L and Bae S. (2013) Gender (IN)Equality in Korean Firms: Results form Stakeholders Interviews.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict 17: 93-113.Rhode D and Packel A. (2014) Diversity on corporate boards: How much difference does difference

make? . Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 39: 377-426.Rutherford S. (2011) Women's work, men's cultures: overcoming resistance and changing organizational

cultures, Macmillan: Palgrave.Soklaridis S and López J. (2014) Women for a Change: Closing the Leadership Gap. Academic Psychiatry

38: 731-736.Stevenson W and Radin R. (2009) Social capital and social influence on the board of directors. Journal of

Management Studies 46: 16-44.Storvik A and Teigen M. (2010) Women on Board The Norwegian Experience.Tate G and Yang L. (2012) Female leadership and gender equity: evidence from plant closure. . UCLA

Working Paper.Teigen M. (2012) Gender Quotas for Corporate Boards in Norway: Innovative Gender Equality Policy In:

Fagan C, González M, Menéndez, et al. (eds) Women on Boards and in Top Management. London: Palgrave.

Torchia M, A C and Huse M. (2011) Women Directors on Corporate Boards: From Tokenism to Critical Mass Journal of Business Ethics 102: 299-317.

Villiers C. (2010) Achieving gender balance in the boardroom: is it time for legislative action in the UK? Legal Studies 30: 533-557.