Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Women Directors on Corporate Boards: From Tokenism to Critical Mass

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Academic debate on the strategic importance of women corporate directors is widely recognized and still open. However, most corporate boards have only one woman director or a small minority of women directors. Therefore they can still be considered as tokens. This article addresses the following question: does an increased number of women corporate boards result in a build up of critical mass that substantially contributes to firm innovation? The aim is to test if ‘at least three women’ could constitute the desired critical mass by identifying different minorities of women directors (one woman, two women and at least three women). Tests are conducted on a sample of 317 Norwegian firms. The results suggest that attaining critical mass – going from one or two women (a few tokens) to at least three women (consistent minority) – makes it possible to enhance the level of firm innovation. Moreover, the results show that the relationship between the critical mass of women directors and the level of firm innovation is mediated by board strategic tasks. Implications for both theory and practice, and future research directions are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amabile, T. M.: 1988, ‘A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations’, in N.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 123-167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C.: 1996, ‘Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams’, Academy of Management Journal 39(1), 123-148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, K.; 1981, ‘Corporate Strategy as a Vital Function of the Board’, Harvard Business Review 59(11), 174-184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arfken, D. E., S. L. Bellar and M. M. Helms: 2004, ‘The Ultimate Glass Ceiling Revisited: The Presence of Women on Corporate Boards’, Journal of Business Ethics 50(2), 177-186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E.: 1951, ‘Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgement’, in H. Guetzkow (ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men (Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh, PA), pp. 177-190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E.: 1955, ‘Opinions and Social Pressure’, Scientific American 193(5), 31-35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K. A. and S. E. Jackson, 1989, ‘Top Management and Innovations in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference?’, Strategic Management Journal 10(2), 107-124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M. and D. A., Kenny: 1986, ‘The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6), 1173-1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B. D. and R. E. Hoskisson: 1990, ‘The Composition of Boards of Directors and Strategic Control: Effects on Corporate Strategy’, Academy of Management Review 15(1), 72-87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B. D., R. D. Kosnik and T. Turk: 1991, ‘Effects of Board and Ownership Structure on Corporate R&D Strategy’, Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 205-214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bear, S., N. Rahman and C. Post: 2010, ‘The Impact of Board Diversity and Gender Composition on Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Reputation’, Journal of Business Ethics 97(2), 207-222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R., S. Bosco and V. L. Columb: 2009, ‘Does Female Representation on Boards of Directors Associate with the ‘Most Ethical Companies’ List?’, Corporate Reputation Review 12(3), 270-280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilimoria, D.: 2000, ‘Building the Business for Women Directors’, in R. J. Burke and M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards: International Challenges and Opportunities (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht), pp. 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilimoria, D. and M. Huse: 1997, ‘A qualitative comparison of the boardroom experiences of U.S.and Norwegian women corporate directors’, International Review of Women and Leadership 3(2): 63-73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilimoria, D. and J. V. Wheeler: 2000, ‘Women Corporate Directors: Current Research and Future Directions’, in Davidsson, M. and R. Burke (eds), Women in Management: Current Research Issues (Paul Chapham, London), pp. 138-163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackman, D. and G. Davison: 2004. ‘The Role of Mental Models in Sustaining Innovative Teams’, in Proceedings of the Fifth CINET Conference, Sydney, Australia, 22–25 September.

  • Bond, R.: 2005, ‘Group Size and Conformity’, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 8(4), 331-354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R.: 1997, ‘Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: A Needed Resource’, Journal of Business Ethics 16(9), 37-43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T. and G. Stalker: 1961, The Management of Innovation (Tavistock, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, K. and A. Mínguez-Vera: 2008, ‘Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and Firm Financial Performance’, Journal of Business Ethics 83(3): 435-451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, J.: 2002, On Board Leadership (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, C.: 2000, ‘Managing Diversity in the New Millennium’, Personnel Review 29(3), 268-274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, B. E. and P. Ghemawat: 1992, ‘Identifying Mobility Barriers’, Strategic Management Journal 13(1), 1-12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childs, S. and M. L. Krook: 2008, ‘Critical Mass Theory and Women’s Political Representation’, Political Studies 56(3), 725-736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J. M. and A. I. Huffcutt: 2003, ‘A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research’, Organizational Research Methods 6(2), 147-168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L: 1978, ‘A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation’, Academy of Management Journal 21(2), 193-210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M. and D. R. Dalton: 2003, ‘Women in the Boardroom: a Business Imperative’, Journal of Business Strategy 24(5), 8-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F.: 1996, ‘Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models’, Management Science 42(5), 693-716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. and W.M. Evan: 1984, ‘Organizational Innovation and Performance: The Problem of Organizational Lag’, Administrative Science Quarterly 29(3), 392-402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H.: 2005, ‘Achieving Relational Authenticity in Leadership: Does Gender Matter?’, Leadership Quarterly 16(3), 459-474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erhardt, N. L., J. D. Werbel and C. B. Schrader: 2003, ‘Board of Director Diversity and Firm Financial Performance’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 11(2), 102-111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkut, S., V. W. Kramer and A. M. Konrad: 2008, ‘Critical Mass: Does the Number of Women on a Corporate Board Make a Difference?’, in Vinnicombe S., V. Singh, R. Burke, D. Bilimoria and M. Huse (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Research and Practice (Edward Elgar, London), pp. 222-232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., C. Kemelgor, M. Neuschatz, B. Uzzi and J. Alonzo: 1994, ‘The Paradox of Critical Mass for Women in Science’, Science 266(5182), 51-54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S. and D. C. Hambrick: 1996, Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Organizations (St. Paul: West).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fondas, N. and S. Sassalos: 2000, ‘A different voice in the boardroom: How the presence of women directors affects board influence over management’, Global Focus, 12(2), 13-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P. and F. J. Milliken: 1999, ‘Cognition and Corporate Governance: Understanding Boards of Directors as Strategic Decision- Making Groups’, Academy of Management Review 24(3), 489-506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franko, L. G.: 1989, ‘Global Corporate Competition: Who’s Winning, Who’s Losing and the R&D Factor as one Reason Why’, Strategic Management Journal 10(5), 449-474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden, B. R. and E. J. Zajac: 2001, ‘When Will Boards Influence Strategy? Inclination x Power = Strategic Change’, Strategic Management Journal 22(12), 1087-1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M.: 1978, ‘Threshold Models of Collective Behavior’, American Journal of Sociology 83(6), 1420-1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grey, S.: 2002, ‘Does Size Matter? Critical Mass and New Zealand’s Women MPs’, Parliamentary Affairs 55(1), 19-29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grey, S.: 2006, ‘New Zealand’, in M. Sawer, M. Tremblay and L. Trimble (eds), Representing Women in Parliament: A Comparative (Routledge, Study, New York), pp. 134-151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham and W. C. Black: 1998, Multivariate Data Analysis (Prentice Hall, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G. S. and C. W. L. Hill: 1991, ‘Are Institutional Investors Myopic? A Time-Series Study of Four Technology-Driven Industries’, Strategy Management Journal 12(1), 1-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., K. H. Price and M. P. Bell: 1998, ‘Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion’, Academy of Management Journal 41(1), 96-107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermalin, B. and M. Weisbach: 2003, ‘Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature’, Economic Policy Review 9(1), 7-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L. and S. A. Snell: 1988, ‘External Control, Corporate Strategy, and Firm Performance in Research-Intensive Industries’, Strategic Management Journal 9(6), 577-90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J. and A. A. Cannella: 2007, ‘Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards’, Academy of Management Journal 50(4): 941-952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., A. A. Cannella and I. C. Harris: 2002, ‘Women and Racial Minorities in Boardroom: How do Directors Differ?’, Journal of Management 28(6), 747-763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., R. E. Hoskisson, R. A. Johnson and D. D. Moesel: 1996, ‘The Market for Corporate Control and Firm Innovation’, Academy of Management Journal 39(5), 1084-1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A. and B. B. Tyler: 1991, ‘Strategic Decision Models: Integrating Different Perspectives’, Strategic Management Journal 12(5), 327-351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson, G. P.: 2003, ‘The Interface of Cognitive and Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76(1), 1-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R.: 1959, ‘Homogeneity of Member Personality and its Effect on Group Problem Solving’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58(1), 27-32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. R. and N. R. F. Maier: 1961, ‘Quality and Acceptance of Problem Solutions by Members of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62(2), 401-407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M.: 2005, ‘Accountability and Creating Accountability: A Framework for Exploring Behavioural Perspectives of Corporate Governance’, British Journal of Management 16(1), 65-79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M.: 2007, Boards, Governance and Value Creation: the Human Side of Corporate Governance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M.: 2009, The Value Creating Board: Corporate Governance and Organizational Behaviour (Routledge, London and New York).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M., A. Minichilli and M. Shoning: 2005, ‘Corporate Boards as Assets for Operating in New Europe. The Value of Process-Oriented Boardroom Dynamics’, Organizational Dynamics 34(3), 285-297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M., S. T. Nielsen and I. M. Hagen: 2009, ‘Women and Employee Elected Board Members, and Their Contributions to Board Control Tasks’, Journal of Business Ethics 89(4), 581-597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. and A. G. Solberg: 2006, ‘Gender Related Boardroom Dynamics: How Women Make and Can Make Contributions on Corporate Boards’, Women in Management Review 21(2), 113-130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L.: 1982, Groupthink (Houghton-Mifflin, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M.: 1977a, Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M.: 1977b, ‘Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life’, American Journal of Sociology 82(5), 965-990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M.: 1983, The Change Masters (Simon and Schuster, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M.: 1987, ‘Men and Women of the Corporation Revisited’, Management Review 76(3), 14-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimberly, J. R. and M. J. Evanisko: 1981, ‘Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual, Organizational, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological and Administrative Innovations’, The Academy of Management Journal 24(4), 689-713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, A. M., V. W. Kramer and S. Erkut: 2008, ‘Critical mass: The impact of Three or More Women on Corporate Boards’, Organizational Dynamics 37(2), 145-164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B.: 1981, ‘The Psychology of Social Impact’, American Psychologist 36(4), 343-356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loden, M.: 1985, ‘Feminine Leadership or How to Succeed in Business Without Being One of the Boys’ (Times Books, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A. and R. D. Clark: 1984, ‘Hidden Impact of Minorities: Fifteen Years of Minority Influence Research’, Psychological Bulletin 95(3), 428-450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainiero, L. A.: 1994, ‘On breaking the Glass Ceiling: The political seasoning of powerful women executives’, Organizational Dynamics 22(4), 5-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mairesse, J. and P. Mohnen: 2001, ‘To be or not to be Innovative: An Exercise in. Measurement’, STI Review 27(1), 103-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J.: 2005, ‘Quota Problems: Combating the Dangers of Essentialism’, Politics and Gender 1(4): 622-638.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, T. and A. Pettigrew: 1999, ‘Strategists on the Board’, Organization Studies 20(1), 47-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezias, S. J. and M. A. Glynn: 1993, ‘The Three Faces of Corporate Renewal: Institution, Revolution, and Evolution’, Strategic Management Journal 14(2), 77-101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. and M. C. Triana: 2009, ‘Demographic Diversity in the Boardroom: Mediators of the Board Diversity–Firm Performance Relationship’, Journal of Management Studies 46(5), 755-786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morbey, G. K.: 1988, ‘R&D: Its Relationship to Company Performance’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 5(3), 191-200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J.: 1986, ‘Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence’, Psychological Review, 93(1), 23-32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. and J. Kwan: 1985, ‘Originality of Word Associations as a Function of Majority vs. Minority Influence’, Social Psychology Quarterly 48(3), 277-282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C.J. and J. Wachtler: 1983, ‘Creative Problem Solving as a Result of Majority and Minority Influence’, European Journal of Social Psychology 13(1), 45-55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S. and M. Huse: 2010a, ‘The Contribution of Women on Boards of Directors: Going Beyond the Surface’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 18(2), 136-148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S. and M. Huse: 2010b, ‘Women Directors’ Contribution to Board Decision-Making and Strategic Involvement: The Role of Equality Perception’, European Management Review 7(1), 16-29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nystrom, H.: 1980, Creativity and Innovation (Wiley, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton, R. and L. Dempster: 2002, ‘Managing Change from a Gender Perspective’, European Management Journal, 20(5), 539-548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N.: 1993, Women and Men in Management (Newbury, Park, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugliese, A., P. Bezemer, A. Zattoni, M. Huse, F. A. J. Van den Bosch and H.W. Volberda: 2009, ‘Board of Directors’ Contribution to Strategy: A Literature Review and Research Agenda’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 17(3), 292-306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, J. L. and M. Huse: 2011, ‘Corporate Governance in Norway: Women Directors and Employee Elected Board Members’, in C. Mallin, International Corporate Governance (Elgar, Cheltenham), pp. 121-146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravasi, D. and A. Zattoni: 2006, ‘Exploring the Political Side of Board Involvement in Strategy: A Study of Mixed-Ownership Institutions’, Journal of Management Studies 48(3), 1672-1704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. and K. Dechant: 1997, ‘Building a Business Case for Diversity’, Academy of Management Executive 11(3), 21-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M.:1984, Innovation and Growth, Schumpeterian Perspectives (MIT Press, Massachusetts).

    Google Scholar 

  • Selby, C.C.: 2000, ‘From Male Locker Room to Co-ed Board Room: A Twenty-Five Year Perspective’, in Burke, R. and M. C. Mattis (eds), Women on Corporate Coards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities (Kluwer, Dordrecht), pp. 239-251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V., S. Vinnicombe and P. Johnson: 2001, ‘Women Directors on Top UK Boards’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 9(3), 206-216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V., S. Vinnicombe and S. Terjesen: 2006, ‘Women Advancing onto the Corporate Board’, in Bilimoria, D. and K. S. Piderit (eds.) Handbook on Women in Business and Management Edward (Elgar, UK), pp. 304-329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiles, P. and Taylor, B. 2001, Boards at Work: How Directors View Their Roles and Responsibilities (Oxford University Press: Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, S. and S. Penrod: 1984, ‘Social Influence Model: a Formal Integration of Research on Majority and Minority Influence Processes’, Psychological Bulletin 95(2), 189-225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., G. Pisano and A. Shuen: 1997, ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’, Strategic Management Journal 18(7), 509-533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terjesen, S., R. Sealy and V. Singh: 2009, ‘Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 17(3), 320-337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W.E., K. Kumar and L. K. Michaelson: 1993, ‘Cultural Diversity’s Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups’, Academy of Management Journal 36(3), 590-602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal J. D. and L. P. Milton: 2000, ‘How Experience and Network Ties Affect the Influence of Demographic Minorities on Corporate Boards’, Administrative Science Quarterly 45(2), 336-398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K.Y. and C.A. O’Reilly: 1998, ‘Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research’, in Staw, B. M. and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (JAI Press, Greenwich), pp. 77-149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A.: 1996, ‘Governance, Ownership, and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Impact of Industry’, Academy of Management Journal 39(6), 1713-1735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. and D. M. Garvis: 2000, ‘International Corporate Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance: the Moderating Effect of International Environmental Hostility’, Journal of Business Venturing 15(5-6), 469-492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A., D.O. Neubaum and M. Huse: 2000, ‘Entrepreneurship in Medium-Size Companies: Exploring the Effects of Ownership and Governance Systems’, Journal of Management 26(5), 947-976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. and J. A. Pearce: 1989, ‘Boards of Directors and Corporate Performance: A Review and Integrative Model’, Journal of Management 15(2), 291-334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. and J. A. Pearce: 1990, ‘Determinants of Board of Directors’ Strategic Involvement’, European Management Journal 8(2), 164-173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A. and W.W. Stanton: 1988, ‘The Implications of Board of Directors’ Composition for Corporate Strategy and Value’, International Journal of Management 5(2), 229-236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., R. Duncan and J. Holbek: 1973, Innovations and Organizations (Wiley, New York).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Studies, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Via Columbia, 2, 00133, Rome, Italy

    Mariateresa Torchia & Andrea Calabrò

  2. BI Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway

    Morten Huse

Authors
  1. Mariateresa Torchia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Calabrò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Morten Huse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariateresa Torchia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Torchia, M., Calabrò, A. & Huse, M. Women Directors on Corporate Boards: From Tokenism to Critical Mass. J Bus Ethics 102, 299–317 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0815-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0815-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation