Count­ing wo­men is not enough

Almost half of all Danish company boards have no women at all. And on many of the boards where women are represented, there is only one.

Researchers refer to someone in such a small minority as a token: a person who stands out so clearly from the majority that she risks being seen as a representative of her gender rather than as a board member on equal terms with everyone else.

Traditionally, the token woman has therefore been associated with marginalisation and limited influence. She may have a seat at the table, but that does not necessarily mean she has access to real power.

But according to CBS Professor Tanusree Jain that conclusion is far too simple.

In a new article published in the academic journal Human Resource Management Journal, Jain and her co-authors challenge the assumption that being in a minority necessarily means having less influence.

“The biggest misconception is that women who are in a minority on a board will necessarily be marginalised and reduced to a symbolic role,” says Tanusree Jain.

The researchers distinguish between being a token and experiencing tokenism. A woman can be the only woman around the table and still have considerable influence. Conversely, a board can have several women members and appear diverse on paper without those women necessarily having real influence.

Numbers do not tell the whole story

Much of the research on women on corporate boards has focused on the idea of critical mass.

The basic idea is that when there is only one woman on a male-dominated board, she becomes highly visible as a woman and is more likely to encounter stereotypes. As more women join the board, the dynamics should begin to change.

Three women, or around 30 per cent of a board, has often been cited as a critical mass.

Jain and her colleagues do not dispute that numbers matter. But numbers only tell part of the story.

How much influence a woman has also depends on the board she joins and the position she occupies within it.

“Board culture matters. The chair is another important factor. The roles women have and the committees they sit on also make a difference,” says Jain.

For example, it can matter whether a woman sits on an influential committee such as the audit committee or on one that carries less weight within the organisation.

A woman’s own experience can also play a part. Is this her first board position, or does she already sit on several boards and therefore enters the room with an established track record?

The point, according to Jain, is that two boards with exactly the same gender balance can offer women very different opportunities to exert influence.

Four ways of being a woman in the minority

To capture these differences, the researchers propose four archetypes for women who are in a minority on corporate boards.

Two of them – The Inert Token and The Paralysed Token – remain on the margins of the dominant group and struggle to gain real influence. The Queen Bee Token, by contrast, has gained access to the inner circle and may have considerable power, but she does not necessarily see herself representing or advancing other women as part of her role.

Then there is The Catalyst Token.

She is particularly important to the researchers’ argument because she challenges the conventional image of the powerless token woman. She may be the only woman around the table and still have both legitimacy and considerable influence. Unlike the Queen Bee, she also uses her position to create change for other women.

According to Jain, there is no single characteristic that enables a woman to become a Catalyst.

She may have such a strong professional standing that she no longer needs to prove her abilities. Her own experiences may give her a desire to help other women progress. But the culture of the board also plays a crucial role.

“It could be a board culture that enables her to speak up rather than be silenced,” says Tanusree Jain.

The researchers therefore also turn their attention to the organisation itself. The question is not simply whether a woman has the ability to gain influence, but whether the board gives her the opportunity to exercise it.

More women does not necessarily mean greater inclusion

The research also raises a question about quotas and other initiatives designed to increase the number of women on corporate boards.

If numbers do not tell the whole story, is increasing the proportion of women enough?

No, says Jain.

“Simply getting more women onto boards does not guarantee their inclusion,” she says.

A board may have three women, or a female share of 30 per cent, and still have a culture in which women do not have the same influence as men.

That does not mean quotas and regulation are unimportant. On the contrary, Jain points out that regulation has helped increase women’s representation on boards.

But representation is not the same as inclusion.

“Diversity and inclusion are not the same thing. A board may appear diverse, but it may not be inclusive,” says Jain.

Companies should therefore look beyond the gender balance, she argues. Who occupies the key positions? How does the chair lead the board? And what kind of culture do women and other minorities encounter when they join?

This does not make counting women irrelevant. But it does change what can be concluded from the numbers.

“We need to look beyond the numbers at who sits on the board, how it is led and what the overall culture is like. A board may look diverse on paper. Whether it is also inclusive depends on what happens around the table,” says Tanusree Jain.