Critical Mass

Critical Mass:

The Impact of Threeor More Women onCorporate Boards

ALISON M. KONRAD VICKI KRAMER SUMRU ERKUT

INTRODUCTION

What is it like to be a solo woman on a Fortune1000 board? We talked with 50 women abouttheir experiences as Fortune 1000 directorsand heard a number of stories like these:

I was the only woman in a room ofguys. I’m not shy, but trying to getyour voice heard around the table isnot easy. You can make a point thatis valid. Two minutes later ‘‘Joe’’says exactly the same thing, and allthe guys congratulate him. It is hard,even at our level, to get your voiceheard. You have to find a way towedge in, and they realize you arenot going away (Woman director).

Initially it felt like I was playingcatch-up. Other directors seemed tounderstand, and I didn’t. A lot ofwhat happened seemed to have beenworked out in committees I didn’t siton or on golf courses. It was an old-boy network until I asked, ‘‘How didthat get decided?’’ Then they began toask what I thought (Women director).

They look at you skeptically as tohow you got there. First you’d bettershow men why you’re there –women don’t get the benefit of the

doubt. Board meetings are prettybrutal (Woman director).

We also discussed the experiences ofwomen on boards with a dozen CEOs, nineof whom were men. A male CEO with threewomen on his board had participated inboard meetings as a senior officer for manyyears before he became CEO. There had beenonly one woman on the board. He recountedhow that solo woman had to fight to be takenseriously:

Shareholders had been asking,‘‘When are you going to have awoman?’’ So they put a woman onjust to say they had a woman. She hadto break down brick walls to be heard.She had to work hard to get into theconversation, almost like not beingthere. Management was not inter-ested in her competency. It was anold boys’ club, and no one on theboard wanted a female (Male CEO).

The situation seems to improve as morewomen are added to these boards. The 50women we spoke to had sat on 36 boardswhere they were one of three women, and on27 other boards where they were one of fourwomen or more. Their stories revealed thatwith three women or more, the boardroomhad a completely different feel:

Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 145–164, 2008 ISSN 0090-2616/$ – see frontmatter� 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.02.005www.organizational-dynamics.com

145

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.02.005

On this board, from day one it was sospecial. Amazing! Actually thatboard has the most women. It is verymuch a team. Professionalism –everyone did their homework andeveryone is supportive of each otherbut very challenging – a lot of dialo-gue and constructive criticism(Woman director).

Three is a kind of a charm. When thethird woman came, it was easier. Thedynamic among the women becameslightly more interactive. It isn’tbased on the fact that the firstwoman is not a friend. In fact sheis someone I didn’t know at all. She’sbecome a friend, but before all thathappened, it changed the dynamicbetween us as women. If the threeof us got into a conversation, therewas no awkward feeling (Womandirector).

Three is like three legs on a stool.Strong. It is clear you are not therebecause of gender but because oftalents. You feel that way. You feelfree to say, ‘‘Let’s go shopping.’’ It isOK to be a female person becauseyou know you are there because ofyour talents (Woman director).

CEOs concurred. For instance, one maleCEO said this about his board, which hadincreased the representation of women fromnone to four:

As there were more women, the firstwoman became more active. Theywere all more active as the numberof women increased. It’s a groupdynamic. When you bring on oneof any demographic group, they’retrying to figure out how they fit.With more, that’s not an issue. Theywere more vocal, more willing topush their issues when more womenwere added to the board. Morerelaxed (Male CEO).

WOMEN ON BOARDS: DONUMBERS MATTER?

Fortune 1000 boards are increasing the repre-sentation of women directors, albeit slowly.The 2005 Catalyst Census of Women BoardDirectors of the Fortune 500 found that womenheld 14.7% of all Fortune 500 board seats, upfrom 13.6% in 2003 and 9.6% in 1995, the yearof the first Catalyst Census. Most of thesewomen serve in male-dominated settings.In 2005, only 76 of these boards had threewomen directors or more, 189 had twowomen, 182 had only one woman on theboard, and 53 of the Fortune 500 still hadno women. Given that these boards have9–12 members on average, women begin toconstitute a numerically important minoritywhen there are at least three of them.

Do numbers make a difference? Onewoman director explained it this way,‘‘The stage with one woman is the invisibil-ity phase. The stage with two women is theconspiracy phase: if the women sit next toeach other, if they go to the ladies roomtogether, the guys wonder what the womenare up to. Three women are main stream – itis normal to have women in the room andthose questions go away.’’ We agree thatnumbers make a difference, based on theexperiences the women directors described,and we argue that there are at three reasonswhy. First, multiple women help to break thestereotypes that solo women are subjectedto. Second, a critical mass of women helpsto change an all-male communicationdynamic. Third and finally, research oninfluence and conformity in groups indicatesthat three may be somewhat of a ‘‘magicnumber’’ in group dynamics, which sug-gests that having three women may be par-ticularly beneficial for creating change (seeExhibit 1).

Stereotypes and the Solo Woman

In 1977, Rosabeth Moss Kanter first madethe argument that women’s behavior in cor-porations is due to their numerical represen-tation. She pointed out that at higher

146 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

managerial levels with few women, eachindividual woman becomes salient andattracts attention. Gender, as the obviousfeature that makes a solo woman differentfrom the rest of the group, becomes the keycharacteristic that people notice. Becausegender attracts so much notice when thereis a solo, board members develop expecta-tions about a solo woman’s behavior basedon her gender. Board members explain a solowoman’s behavior as being due to her gen-der, and come to view a solo woman’s beha-vior as representative of all women.

We identified all three of these dynamicsin the stories women board directors told us

about being the only woman on a Fortune1000 board. The women were acutely awarethat member’s expectations for their boardperformance were based on them beingfemale. One woman reported that she hadreceived a card from the CEO that read, ‘‘Ithought I was hiring a token, and boy was Imistaken.’’ Another woman told a story of atime when a new CEO was hired who didn’tknow her: ‘‘He seemed to assume I was onbecause of being a woman. The only time hecalled and asked me for advice was for hiswife on information about curtains. That wasinappropriate.’’ A third woman said, ‘‘Ifyou’re the only woman, you can be dis-

147

EXHIBIT 1 WHAT DIFFERENCES DO NUMBERS MAKE?

missed with, ‘That person is here just so wecan say there’s a woman on the board.’’’

Solo women also experienced having theirbehavior attributed to all women, a situationthat improved as more women were addedto the board. As one woman director on aboard with two women said, ‘‘It was nice forme having another woman in the room. Ididn’t feel quite like I was representing mygender every time I spoke up.’’

The Corporate Board as aMasculine Arena

Historically, Fortune 1000 boards have beenpredominated by men. This fact means thatwomen entering the boardroom are steppinginto an almost all-male dynamic. Research oncommunication among men suggests thatwhat can happen in such settings is that themen start competing with each other for statusand power. A competitive, win–lose cultureon a Fortune 1000 board is likely to pose abarrier to the participation of women.

How likely is a competitive dynamic toform among male board members? Given thefact that Fortune 1000 directors control thefate of some of the largest and most powerfulorganizations in the world, effectively claim-ing the highest level of status in the board-room is likely to be a highly motivating goal.Although no one claims that all-male board-rooms are all hyper-competitive, a number ofthe women we spoke with described compe-titive behavior among these men. Some menwere viewed as posturing for status duringboard discussions, as these quotations fromwomen directors illustrate:

The women tend to only say some-thing when they really have some-thing to say or when they have aquestion. Men tend to talk a lot moreand don’t always have anythingworthwhile to say, they’re just talk-ing (Woman director).

The guys are out to assert their male-ness but women focus on the issues(Woman director).

A third woman director probablyexplained it best in the following quotation:

There’s not one way the men act. Onall boards, there’s that 20–25% whodominate the board and are politi-cally the people the CEO knows heneeds to make a deal with becausethey’re going to be difficult and havean opinion about everything. Wetwo women spoke up when wehad something to contribute asopposed to having an opinion oneverything (Woman director).

This competitive masculine dynamicfocuses the men on each other, with the resultthat a solo woman gets talked over andignored. As one woman director explained,‘‘When I first went on the board and was theonly woman, I was basically invisible. Thechairman was sensitive to diversity andalways made sure my opinion was heard.If the others were ignoring me or talking overme, he would say, ‘Wait a minute, I haven’theard her view on this issue yet.’’’ Onceagain, bringing another woman to the tableimproved the situation. One woman directordescribed the value of having anotherwoman during board discussions, ‘‘If she feltthat people were not listening to me or therewas something unfair going on, she wouldspeak up, not necessarily directly, but wouldpursue the same train of thought and makesure my point got heard.’’

The Magic of the Number Three

Contrary to the depictions in science fictionstories, social science research has providedus with very few magic formulas for influen-cing people’s behavior. In the area of groupdynamics, however, the number three seemsto be pivotal. This conclusion comes from thebody of research inspired by Asch’s originalstudies in conformity to majority opinion.Those early studies involved asking groupsof students to participate in a ‘‘vision test.’’ Inreality, all but one of the participants was aconfederate of the experimenter who had


been rehearsed to give the wrong answer.Thus, the study was really about how theremaining student would react to the confed-erates’ behavior. The participants – the realsubject and the confederates – were all seatedin a classroom where they were told toannounce their judgment of the length ofseveral lines drawn on a series of displays.They were asked which line was longer thanthe others, which were the same length, etc.Faced with confederates who all gave thesame incorrect answer, one third of the timethe real subjects gave the same wrong answeras the majority gave. This tendency to beinfluenced by the majority’s wrong answerwas maximized when there were at least threeconfederates present. Interestingly, havingfour or more confederates in the room didnot substantially increase the probability thatthe real subject would conform – three seemedto be a real magic number in Asch’s originalstudies. Since that time, over 100 similar stu-dies of majority influence have been con-ducted supporting the influence of amajority of three.

A major caveat to this finding is the effect ofhaving an ally. If even one person in the roomexpresses disagreement with the incorrectmajority of three, it greatly reduces the like-lihood that others will conform. A persistentunanimous minority also influences thegroup, but not in the same way. Rather thanconforming to the minority opinion, the groupexamines its own views more closely throughdiscussion, which results in a higher qualitydecision.

These experimental findings have severalimplications for the number of women oncorporate boards. First, if three people onthe board speak strongly and unanimouslyin favor of a particular point, and no one saysanything in disagreement, it is likely that theother individuals in the room will conform tothe apparent majority decision. Given thatboard decisions are complex and the factsare often ambiguous, the impact of a majorityof three is likely far greater in a board situationthan it is in the experimental situation inAsch’s studies, where the decision was simpleand the majority was visibly wrong.

Second, if even one person on the boardmakes a strong statement in disagreementwith a majority of three and does not waverfrom his or her view, that disagreement from apersistent minority is likely to lead the groupto process the issue more fully than wouldotherwise be the case, with the result that theboard will make a better decision. Hence,minority views are likely to be critical to theeffectiveness of board decision processes.

Third, and finally, people with minorityopinions are considerably more likely tospeak up and state their disagreement witha strong majority when they know they havean ally in the room. People who perceivethemselves as being alone in disagreeingwith the majority are more likely to conformand therefore considerably less likely toshare their dissenting views. Hence,although lone dissenters can stimulate aneffective group process, they are less likelyto do so than dissenters with allies.

Of course, sharing a demographic cate-gory is not the same thing as expressingthe same opinion, and three women directorsare unlikely to consistently express the sameunanimous opinion in board discussions.However, if the rest of the board perceivesthe women as sharing important similarities,the magic of three might obtain due to theperception that the women are likely toagree, at least for some issues. In cases wherethe women explicitly present a unanimousopinion, they may have the ability to sub-stantively influence board discussionsthrough the critical mass effect.

Evidence for the Impact ofNumber of Women on a Board

Our data show that two women are defi-nitely better than one, and three are definitelybetter than two. We drew this conclusionfrom what the 50 women directors, 12 CEOs,and 7 corporate secretaries said aboutwomen’s board experiences. Whenever oneof our study participants described an inci-dent to us, we asked how many women werepresent on the board at the time. By compar-ing the incidents with solo women, two

149

women, and three women or more, we areable to draw some clear conclusions aboutthe impact of numbers.

The experiences of solo women directors. Alone woman can and often does have a sig-nificant impact on a board. The women weinterviewed who were solo women directorshad chaired audit, compensation, nominat-ing and governance committees. They hadmade substantial contributions, such as reor-ganizing a company’s compensation process,shepherding a company through a businessdownturn, and putting state-of-the-art gov-ernance processes into place. However, weinferred that these women were effective notbecause of being the only woman but despitebeing the only woman, and that there weredownsides to their solitary status. More thana few directors mentioned that because theyhad been the only woman in business circlesfor many years, they had become accus-tomed to being the only woman. In orderto succeed as pioneers in corporate America,they had to develop tough skins. ‘‘I havebeen the only woman so many times itdoesn’t register with me,’’ said one woman.

Being the first woman on a board or fol-lowing another woman may make a differ-ence, according to some women. A focus-group participant said, ‘‘There’s a differencebetween being the only woman and the firstwoman. If you are the first woman, everyoneis conscious that you are a woman. Untilyou’ve really performed, there is a questionmark. There is a supposition that you speakfrom a woman’s point of view. That erodes asyou participate. If you had a strong prede-cessor or two and the board senses you arenot speaking as your predecessor did, thetransition is quick, and the board gets themessage that you are not just anotherwoman.’’ So, with a strong female predeces-sor, a solo woman is seen more as an indi-vidual. One interviewee who had followed a‘‘brilliant, self-confident, and outspokenwoman,’’ said that, ‘‘It must have helpedto have her first.’’ How a woman is treatedmay be different if the first woman was notviewed as a contributor. A focus-group par-

ticipant explained: ‘‘The sense of being anoutsider is my experience, being the onlywoman on two boards. I had a predecessoron one who hadn’t contributed much. Myexperience is that no one listened to me.’’

The fact that it matters what kind of womanpreceded another woman on a board makes itclear that a solo woman must overcomestereotyping. When a man serves on a board,he is not treated like the man he replacedbecause he is seen as an individual. Lonewomen reported being seen as women first,contributors second. When women were lis-tened to or their opinions were sought, oftenthey were consulted for what are stereotypi-cally female issues, such as work-life flexibil-ity or the status of women in the organization.Women reported being expected to bring upissues involving women. A focus-group par-ticipant told of the first woman on a boardpublicly bequeathing that responsibility to herwhen she was replacing that woman. But thatexpectation was also a potential trap, accord-ing to others who worried about being taggedas single-issue people.

Several women said they felt visible aslone women. As one focus-group participantsaid, ‘‘If you are alone, the spotlight is onyou.’’ Another participant pointed out thatsome issues of being a woman on a boardmay continue when more women join, ‘‘Butyou notice it more when you are the only one.It is so visible when you are the only one. Youare different when you walk in.’’

Probably more detrimental to their abilityto contribute was ‘‘the invisibility phase’’—feeling ignored, dismissed, not taken ser-iously, or otherwise excluded. Many directorsidentified these problems with being the onlywoman on a board. ‘‘If you are the only one, itis clear that you are not part of the club,’’explained a woman who had experiencedbeing the solo woman and being one of multi-ple women. Another woman characterized aboard where she is the only woman this way:

It is kind of like, ‘‘Who is this person?She’s a lot different than we are.’’Not collegial. Not a lot of conversa-tion, not a lot of interaction. On this


board, where I’m the only womanand the only African-American, it’svery different than the other two,where there are two women – theinteraction with board members,openness and acceptance of newmembers like me (Woman director).

Invisibility is not comfortable for anywoman, but, more than that, it is a situationthat reduces her capacity to contribute. Thesame woman who described her experienceas the lone woman as ‘‘not collegial’’ indi-cated that she was not included in the ‘‘infor-mal interaction before or after meetings,’’and that, ‘‘There are conversations manytimes, and I have a feeling that everybodycomes to the table with a point of view basedon these other conversations that I’m notincluded in.’’

The women directors were often able toresist being ignored. But to do so, they had towork extra hard, or get help from one of themen, or be willing to point out what washappening. One woman who had a sponsoron one board said that, ‘‘On another board,where they didn’t know me, I had to work alot harder to fit in and to gain their comfortwith me so that we could operate effectivelyas a board.’’ The following comments by lonewomen directors indicate the challenges ofbeing ignored:

With one woman on the board, ittakes much longer to get stuff donelike getting more women in the pipe-line. Regarding the dynamics of theboardroom, the woman says some-thing, then five minutes later itbecomes the genius idea of some-body else. Early on, as the onlywoman, you have to spend moretime convincing others of the cred-ibility of your issue. When you’re thefirst one in the room, you’re muchmore circumspect (Woman director).

The company had had the sameexternal auditors for years anddecided to change, just for good

practice. The CFO and board arediscussing the fact that we are chan-ging auditors. He’s going to bring inthe new partners from the auditingfirm. They come into the room. Theywalk down one side of the board-room and shake hands with every-body. Shook hands with the twoguys on my left, skipped me, andthen shook hands with the nextguy. They left. The group startedtalking about their presentation,and I said, ‘‘I have to interrupt.Did you notice what happened?’’ Itturns out that, yes, one of the guyshad noticed. He said, ‘‘They didn’tshake hands with you’’ (Womandirector).

Presumably, had she not drawn attentionto having been ignored, the only man whonoticed would not have spoken up to callattention to what had occurred.

Even a female CEO faces challenges whenserving on an outside board where she is theonly woman. A female CEO reported, ‘‘Ispend time making sure I am heard. I mayhave to say things two or three times.’’

Two women are better than one. The bur-dens directors felt as solo women could begleaned from their comments about how theaddition of a second woman made a positivedifference:

When the second woman came, Iloved having her there. There is adifference when another woman isin the room. It is helpful. You gen-erally share perspectives and it iseasier to have two who feel the sameway. We supported each other, but itwas also a mental check (Womandirector).

With two women, there is more com-fort. You feel a commonality beyondbusiness experience – I have some-one I can bounce things off of. Ofcourse, it depends on the kind of

151

woman, but if you are not extremesof personality, it is a natural support(Woman director).

Speaking about how men interact withfemale directors, another interviewee said:

It feels like they don’t quite knowwhat to do sometimes. The four newguys tend to bond at the meetings.All six of us new directors, two ofwhom are women, tend to hangtogether. But the guys with the guys,it’s easier. The guys share more inter-ests and find it easier to build rap-port. They’ll ask each other,‘‘Where’s your wife this weekend?’’but they are uncomfortable askingabout husbands. That took a longtime (Woman director).

These comments show that the presence ofa second woman can provide a partner tosocialize with during downtimes or socialevents, making such situations more comfor-table. The support that comes from getting toknow people outside the boardroom andbeing able to have casual conversations issomething that men may well take forgranted. Exhibit 2 provides more commentson the relationships women directors hadwith each other.

Beyond a feeling of comfort, two womenprovide each other with a sounding board.For instance, one woman said, ‘‘When thesecond woman came on, it made a differencein being able to check the temperature. Wetravel to meetings on the company planetogether, and it is good to have an opportu-nity to ask these questions.’’ The ability tovalidate your opinions with a trusted collea-


EXHIBIT 2 MOST WOMEN DIRECTORS HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH EACH OTHER.

gue is very valuable because board situationsare complex, information can be ambiguous,and the stakes for getting decisions right arevery high.

Given the level of discussion complexity,communication in the boardroom can some-times be a barrier for members of a demo-graphic group in the numerical minority.One interviewee said she could tell that theother female director understood what shewas saying when her male colleagues had noidea. ‘‘More is automatically understoodbecause other women have had similarexperiences.’’ Women can also reinforce apoint that might otherwise not be heard.With at least two women in the room, eachwoman feels freer to bring up issues andconcerns. A second woman who is likely toat least understand, if not agree with, one’sviews enhances the comfort level, whichhelps many women be more vocal in boardmeetings. Given the complexity and ambi-guity of the information and the importanceof board decisions, the ability to improveunderstanding in board discussions thatcomes from having two women is likely tobe quite valuable for governance.

A number of women we interviewed saidthat they experienced less stereotyping onboards with two women than on those withone:

It is palpably different when there ismore than one woman. It is hard formen to generalize if the two womenare different (Woman director).

Having another woman minimizesthe chances they will say, ‘‘Well,that’s just a woman’s view,’’ becausewe sometimes disagree, and the mensee there is not unanimity. It desen-sitizes them to noticing we arewomen because there are twowomen (Woman director).

It was easier for the second womanthat I was the first. The men learnthat women will be deliberating justlike the men (Woman director).

Two women do not eliminate stereotypingand bias. Two women improved the situa-tion but were not enough to eliminate stereo-typing and biased perceptions. Consistentwith the ‘‘conspiracy phase’’ remarked uponby one of our interviewees, several womenon two-woman boards noted their attemptsto avoid being viewed as colluding with theother woman:

At the first few meetings I would sitdown and the other woman wouldcome and sit beside me. I felt thatcreated a dynamic that I did not wantto create. So we try not to sit togetherbecause we don’t want to look likethe ‘‘women’s contingent’’ (Womandirector).

The other woman director said, ‘‘Webetter not stand here too long orthey’ll think we’re plotting a coup’’(Woman director).

If there are only two women andthey sit next to each other, the menthink the women are conspiring(Woman director).

Another interviewee quipped, ‘‘When twowomen on a board agree, the guys joke,‘They’re ganging up on us.’ I joke back,‘You can’t win.’’’

A few women reported that on someboards men have behaved in ways that indi-cated they thought of two women as inter-changeable rather than seeing them asseparate people: ‘‘I raised a question at aboard meeting that caused the board to takesome important action. Later on, the boardchair thanked the other woman for raisingthe question. No one said anything to correcthim.’’ The woman who reported this exam-ple had a similar experience at another timeon the same board. Male board members alsocontinued to be surprised at how effectivethe women were, an indication that they mayhave seen them as tokens and did not havehigh expectations for their performance. Aninterviewee had this experience: ‘‘Going

153

back in the van after the first meeting, theother woman and I were in the back seathaving a good discussion about a lot ofthings. A man said, ‘Wow! You guys madea real contribution!’’’ We heard similar stor-ies in a focus group.

On boards with two women, some femaledirectors reported negative experiences withbeing categorized, stereotyped, ignored, andexcluded that are similar to those faced bywomen on boards where they serve alone:

Every time the two women askedquestions, there was a bit of annoy-ance by the CEO. There is a differ-ence between the CEO responding toa question as though you are raisinga problem – being defensive – andbeing more positive by saying, ‘‘Letme think about it’’ (Woman director).

The other woman director and I, wecame on at the same time, feel thatsome things are discussed outside ofthe meetings. We are not quite partof the inner circle (Woman director).

Several things I said were not lis-tened to, and then they were broughtup again by a man and were listenedto. I’m sure it’s a sexist thing, becauseit happens to the other woman also(Woman director).

Three women are better than two. Three ormore women in the boardroom seem toresult in a definite shift in the quality ofwomen’s experiences. A few respondentsused the terms ‘‘tipping point’’ and ‘‘criticalmass’’ to characterize boards with twowomen. But they may be similar to theCEO who acknowledged he does not have‘‘enough experience with three women on aboard to know if it makes a difference,’’ whilespeculating that it would. Most of those withexperience of boards with three or morewomen spoke strongly and unequivocallyabout the value of moving beyond two.

With three women on a board, no onewoman has to worry about representing the

entire gender. ‘‘The three women don’talways agree with each other, and that ishealthy for the men to see. They are indepen-dent,’’ said a male CEO with three women onhis board. Although most of the women –even when they were the only one or one oftwo women on a board – paid attention to thestatus of women employees by interactingwith female executives, raising questionsabout candidate slates during succession dis-cussions, or requesting diversity reports,many women directors were conscious ofnot wanting to be tagged as single-issue peo-ple and were careful to limit comments ondiversity issues. With three or more:

You decide how much you will pushdiversity as a board member. Youcan’t make it your only issue, oryou get marginalized. Spread it outamong the women; each of us takes adifferent piece of the diversity issue.On some boards, we divide it up(Woman director).

As a female director said, ‘‘Three womenin the room get the board to focus on theseissues quickly.’’ And frequently with severalwomen on the board, because diversity isstaring them in the face, men speak up first.As a focus-group participant said, ‘‘You arenot the person they look to for issues ofdiversity. Because there are more women,the men raise it. It becomes a group respon-sibility.’’

Three or more women raise a wide varietyof topics that may be less often discussed inmale-dominated boardrooms. One maleCEO stated that the gender composition ofthe board ‘‘makes a tremendous difference.’’He explained, ‘‘If it’s 50/50, you talk aboutall kinds of things, and it’s not just an old-boys’ network.’’ What is talked about is dif-ferent not only in informal conversations,but, importantly, also in boardroom discus-sions. With three women or more, accordingto one woman director, ‘‘It feels more com-fortable to raise certain subjects that are con-sidered by men to be ‘softer.’’’ Some of thosesubjects might be the issues concerning


employees, the community, organizationaldiversity and inclusiveness, or the com-pany’s reputation. Women directors wereadamant that the issues they raised werecritical to the business. They explained thatthe willingness to raise a broader set of issueshelps a board to move beyond short-termfinancial numbers and to focus on factorsthat will sustain performance in the longerterm.

The voices of three or more women areheard in another important way. Much of thework of any board happens in committees,and committee chairs are often the mostpowerful people on the board and those mostconsulted by the CEO. As numerous inter-viewees pointed out, with more women on aboard, more women chair committees, giv-ing women more influence:

On my board with four women, theinvisibility issue never happened. Ibecame effective quickly. I happen tobe the lead director of that board. Ifyou look at that board, the head ofthe governance committee is awoman, the head of the compensa-tion committee is a woman, the CEOis a woman, and the head of the auditcommittee is a guy. There is no pro-blem with women in leadership onthat board (Woman director).

The presence of more women at the tablealso begins to change the way the men com-municate and behave. Women’s tendenciesto collaborate, to ask difficult questions andraise a broader set of issues start to becomethe boardroom norm. ‘‘The men are learningto be more inclusive, asking whether anyoneelse has any comments, and so on,’’ said afemale corporate secretary on a board thatwent from two, to three, to four womendirectors. One of the women directors said:

I’ve been on two boards with fourwomen. The dynamic changesbecause you’re, in most cases, a thirdor more of the board. In some boardsettings with fewer women, trying toget a word in edgewise, you have to

work at it because everyone is tryingto position themselves. It is hard tohave a discussion as opposed todebating different points of view; itbecomes a competition rather than adiscussion. When the board hasmore women, the competition toget your voice heard is over, becauseit’s like all of us sitting around. It’s asupportive dynamic: more consen-sus, less combative, more collabora-tive. A dynamic shift occurs. You cansee the guys decompress from theirnormal very aggressive style (Womandirector).

Changing the boardroom dynamic from acontest for status to a collaborative discus-sion can enhance the quality of governance,according to our participants. A woman CEOmentioned a ‘‘total and positive change inboard dynamics when women were added.’’She noted that men on this board, which hasthree women outside directors, have com-mented: ‘‘How terrific the discussions andrichness the outcomes have been, the differ-ence the women directors are making. It isnight and day compared to how board meet-ings used to be. There is a higher level ofunderstanding of the business.’’ She now hasa ‘‘powerhouse board’’ that helps her thinkthrough issues.

A woman corporate secretary alsoreported on the kind of difference threeor more women make in interacting withstaff:

The women are incredibly humaniz-ing. They treat staffers better. Theyare less hierarchical. They are affirm-ing of staff. They compliment themon reports – in meetings and outside.They are also critical but are muchmore likely to find time to be positiveand personal. Thanking people pub-licly. That makes the board lessremote and intimidating to staff.People talk differently now thatthere are more women. I did notnotice this when there were two

155

women. It is happening more now.At audit committee meetings, thereare now several top executives whoare women. So with the women onthe audit committee, there are a lot ofwomen in the room. It is much moreconversational and less hierarchicaland, as a result, all the directors getbetter information (Woman corporatesecretary).

Why Should We Care about theRepresentation of Women?

There are many reasons why we shouldcare about the representation of women onFortune 1000 boards. Beyond the simpleappearance of equity, women have muchto contribute. Our interviews uncovered sev-eral benefits of including more women onboards. These include: providing differentperspectives on the issues, expanding thecontent of board discussions, raising issuesthat pertain to multiple stakeholders, askingdifficult questions about tough issues, andusing interpersonal skills to positively influ-ence board processes.

Providing different perspectives. Many ofour interviewees articulated the benefits ofdiverse perspectives for the quality of board-room discussions. Beyond the accepted wis-dom that multiple viewpoints increase theamount of knowledge a group can bring tobear on a decision, two male CEOs hadparticular insights regarding the value ofdiversity on boards. One emphasized thevalue of not being able to assume that otherswill understand what you’re saying: ‘‘Thereis more transparency with diversity. Youdon’t assume people will think in a certainway, and people express opinions in a clearerway.’’ Hence, diversity around the tableforces both management and directors toexpress their ideas more clearly and logi-cally, which enhances the quality of deci-sion-making. A second CEO described thefreeing effect of diversity for all members ofthe board: ‘‘When you have a fair amount ofdiversity of gender, race, profession, and

temperament, more people feel free to makepoints that are unconventional.’’ Thus, diver-sity allows even members of the majoritygroup to broaden the topics of discussionbeyond short-term financial performancenumbers.

Expanding the content of board discus-sions. Women raise a new set of issues forboard consideration that are based on theirunique set of experiences as business owners,executives, and consumers. Many of ourstudy participants focused on the importanceof having the perspectives of key constitu-encies – customers and employees – repre-sented at the boardroom table. Considerthese quotations from three male CEOs:

This is a consumer-products indus-try with mostly women customers.The women on the board bring aunique perspective on their daily life– different from male CEOs, whodon’t do the shopping. We havesome businesses targeted just atwomen, so the women on the boardhave relevant experience (MaleCEO).

We are in the healthcare business,and most decisions about healthcareare made by women. So not havingwomen on the board would be ridi-culous. I don’t think companies inthe types of businesses wherewomen make most of the spendingdecisions can get good input fromtheir directors when they don’t havewomen on the board. You get a muchbetter sense of what’s going on in thereal world if you have the woman’sviewpoint in the boardroom (MaleCEO).

No doubt it is a different boardbecause there is a woman there. Itis critical to have diversity of opi-nion; diversity of opinion makes usstronger. How can men understandissues that the women employees –


who are 30 percent of employees –face? It would be less effective with-out a woman. You want good deci-sions and need diversity of opinionto get that (Male CEO).

A woman director who participated in oneof our focus groups talked about joining aboard where she was the only director whohad ever shopped in the company’s stores,and where she was the first board member tounderstand, as she put it, ‘‘the shopper she.’’Another told a different focus group aboutbeing the first and only woman on a boardthat was discussing a strategy related toworking mothers, basing it on ‘‘some theoryand data.’’ She reported that she was able tochange the discussion of the male boardmembers about an idea that was ‘‘goingnowhere’’ by giving her own perspectiveof being a working mother. Similarly, draw-ing on their own experiences, women direc-tors say they have suggested new productlines, such as a profitable line of healthierfoods in one company.

Raising issues that pertain to multiplestakeholders. Women directors are alsomore likely to broaden the content of board-room discussions to consider the perspec-tives of multiple stakeholders who have animpact on and are impacted by the com-pany’s performance. They are more apt tobring up human resource and customer con-cerns or raise questions about issues – such ashealth and safety – that might affect companyreputation and the community. Thoughthese may be considered ‘‘softer’’ issues bysome, the women directors and CEOs weinterviewed saw them as business mattersthat are critical to sustaining high perfor-mance in the long run. Quotations fromtwo male CEOs illustrate this point:

Women get what’s really happeningon the ground and how we can helppeople. They have the ability to putsomeone’s welfare before their own.Most men think about themselvesand think about things only from

their own point of view. Womenhave greater connection to thehuman context of the business,which is very good for our business,because if you help more people, youwin (Male CEO).

When you go through rough patchesand you have to make decisionsabout your strategy – getting rid ofbusinesses, cutbacks – the womenshow a real sensitivity to the peoplein the company; and that’s good tomake certain everyone’s treatedproperly. . . Women are in someways more aware of a company’svisibility in the public eye and themarketplace. There’s a saying thatwomen think with their full brainand men with half their brain, andto some extent that’s true. Men tendto focus on achieving a goal, andthey don’t pay attention to what’shappening on either side of them(Male CEO).

Women are certainly more likely to raiseissues related to the advancement of womenin the company. They report paying attentionto how women are doing during board suc-cession discussions, as well as taking activeroles in mentoring women executives andspeaking to women’s networks in the com-panies. CEOs sometimes asked them to playthose roles. Women employees gravitated tothe women directors at company events. Andalmost all the women directors we inter-viewed reported taking some action to pro-mote women’s careers, though theirapproaches ranged from the direct and out-spoken – asking for diversity reports and, inone case, making a videotape on diversity –to working behind the scenes. Many thoughtthat such action was expected of them or thatthey had a responsibility to do this.

Many respondents said that the women,like the men, also bring a variety of skills,knowledge, and perspectives based on theirparticular professional experience – market-ing, finance, technology – and raise a wide

157

variety of issues. But women are more likelybe ‘‘strategic’’ while men tend to focus on‘‘short-term earnings, losses incurred, sales –all the key points that impact the short term,’’according to one woman director.

Using interpersonal skills. In addition toinfluencing the content of boardroom discus-sion by bringing valuable new perspectives onissues, due to their experiences as women,women directors have an impact on the dis-cussion process. Both women directors andCEOs mentioned women’s interpersonal

skills as an asset to the board (see Exhibit 3).They reported that women have a more col-laborative style that impacts boardroomdynamics. Women, more than men, listenopenly to other speakers, attend to the needsof others for respect and consideration, andhelp the group to identify mutually satisfac-tory compromises to solve delicate problems:

I think women are better readers ofbody language. That can be a goodskill in the boardroom. I can think oftimes when I was not sure of the

EXHIBIT 3 WOMEN’S COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP STYLE.

subject matter, but I could lookaround the room and see that therewas something troubling other peo-ple, but for some reason, no one wasspeaking out. I can be the one to say,‘‘Can we just step back a minutehere? Can you state again whatyou’re asking us?’’ and open upthe conversation one more time.There are times when it is amazingwhat that can lead to. Another wholediscussion starts. Women are betterat picking up the vibes that we arenot all in agreement here (Womandirector).

Women are more cooperative andless competitive in tone andapproach. When there’s an issue,men are ready to slash and burn,while women are ready to approach.Women are calmer and more rea-soned, often more balanced. Womenoften provide a type of leadershipthat helps boards do their jobs better.More of a voice of reason in the room(Woman director).

The women are universally morepolite. They are more willing to listen.They have much more sympathy andempathy and concern (Male CEO).

While outspoken, the women find away to make sure you can hear theircomments. . . The women are moreapt to ask questions that allow themto use their listening skills better sothat they can make sure that whenthey follow up their comments areon target (Female CEO).

Asking difficult questions about tough is-sues. Claiming that women tend to bringpositive interpersonal and communicationcompetencies to the boardroom is not sayingthat women are ‘‘softer’’ than men. On thecontrary, we also heard evidence fromwomen directors, CEOs, and corporate secre-taries alike that women are more likely than

men to ask questions and raise tough issues.One male corporate secretary said thatwomen tend to ask questions if they don’tunderstand something that the managementteam has not fully explained, although heknows there are men on the board who are‘‘equally clueless’’ about what is being dis-cussed. A male CEO claimed the men ‘‘felt agender obligation to behave as though theyunderstood everything.’’ As a woman direc-tor said, ‘‘Women are not afraid that they willlook dumb if they ask a question,’’ and their‘‘willingness to ask the question helps theboard process. If people are afraid to raise aquestion, a matter does not get resolved. If aboard member does not understand an issue,then they can’t contribute fully.’’

In addition to ensuring that all boardmembers understand the issues, asking ques-tions pushes the management team to com-municate their arguments clearly and fully.The willingness of women directors to askquestions when they don’t understandmeans that management is less likely to geta decision passed on the basis of fuzzy logic,and as a result, these questions enhance thequality of the entire problem-solving process.

In controversial areas such as compensa-tion, women were considered more likely toraise tough questions and demand straightanswers. Numerous women brought upinstances where they were alone in ques-tioning the CEO’s compensation or in vot-ing no on a compensation issue. Twocomments made in focus groups capturethis theme:

For the time being, women and peo-ple of color are outsiders in the board-room. The dynamics of beingsomeone who hasn’t had the sameexperiences are that one asks differ-ent questions. One of the most valu-able things in the boardroom is thequestions asked. Why are we doingthat? I see this increasingly on thedynamic on compensation. Therewas difficulty in setting limits bythose who have benefited from thenon-limits in the past – former CEOs.

159

‘‘I don’t want them to question mine; Iwon’t question yours.’’ Most womenand minorities have not been CEOsand bring different perspectives tocorporate compensation (Womandirector).

Compensation is a platform that weas outsiders, and insiders – as a peeron the board – have an advantage.My perspective is real different thana lot of the guys on how much isenough. Because I have a differentperspective, some boards are reluc-tant to put women and minoritiesonto the compensation committee.Men say, ‘‘I want a former CEO.’’They are competing with each otherand want someone who understandsthat you have to have the plane, etc.That could be the next frontier wherewomen and minorities can help withthat dialogue (Woman director).

Compensation is not the only subject onwhich women were willing to take minoritypositions and be outspoken. They reportedspeaking against the launch of a proposednew product and prevailing, opposing entryinto a new market and being vindicated,voting no on a major transaction and beingproved prescient in a few years, and urginga company not to ignore a potential sexual-harassment situation. They used terms like‘‘going against the tide,’’ being ‘‘the onlyone to vote no,’’ and opening ‘‘topics thatwere unpopular.’’ One focus-group partici-pant said that women are ‘‘willing to telltruth to power, to risk,’’ possibly becausethey are ‘‘not part of the old boys’ club anddon’t owe as many people.’’ Being relativenewcomers to the boardroom, women direc-tors are not bound by informal, business-as-usual traditions that have shaped boardroominteractions and directors’ decision-making.One male CEO explained that, ‘‘Men – CEOs –are still putting on boards those they knowand are comfortable with. If the board letsthem get away with packing it with theirfriends, they will. Women are perceived as

more outsiders. They are not the typical CEOplaying golf on a weekend and socializingtogether outside the office.’’

Raising tough issues is not without itsdifficulties and is not always well received.One woman believes she was not re-electedto a board because of her positions on CEOcompensation and some governance issues.But some women reported that their dissentopened the door for others on the board tochallenge the majority. Also, in raising thetough issues, women generally, though notalways, used their valuable process skills tocouch statements in terms that preventeddefensiveness. CEOs saw this factor asimportant for helping management takethe women’s concerns to heart.

Implicat ions for Action

The results of the study show that evenone woman can make a positive contribution,that having two women is generally animprovement, but that corporations withthree or more women on their boards tendto benefit most from women’s contributions.Three women normalizes women directors’presence, allowing women to speak and con-tribute more freely and men to listen withmore open minds.

The implications of these findings are thatadding more women to corporate boards islikely to be valuable. We do not expect,however, that adding women will magicallysolve all corporate governance problems.Many participants in our study noted greatchanges on boards since the passage of Sar-banes-Oxley and other efforts to reform gov-ernance. Still, the tendencies of women to askdifficult questions and demand directanswers, to bring a longer-term strategicperspective to board discussions, and tocounter combative, win–lose discussiondynamics can only help to improve the qual-ity of decision-making in the boardroom.

Adding more women to corporate boardswill require boards to find and select quali-fied women for board positions. Women arenot going to be recruited from the samefeeder pools that supply boards with their


typical male candidates, i.e., CEOs of otherFortune 1000 firms. To date, only 20 of theFortune 1000 are led by female CEOs. Ourparticipants argued strongly, however, thatCEOs are not the only business people qua-lified to serve on these boards. Indeed, manymale directors serving on boards are notCEOs. Women at the level of corporate offi-cer (i.e., in the C-suite or at the EVP level) aswell as other professionals who understandbusiness, such as lawyers, nonprofit execu-tives, consultants and academics, are emi-nently suitable for directorships.

Boards of Fortune 1000 firms, however,traditionally prefer to fill vacancies withCEOs of other Fortune 1000 firms. One maleCEO explained why at least some boardmembers need to be CEOs:

The reason people would like to havea CEO is because you just about haveto be in the seat to understand thepressures, the issues, the dynamics ofwhat it takes to run a bigger organi-zation. If you have a more limitedseat, it’s not that you can’t be good,but you can’t totally relate to what theperson is going through.

Some participants, on the other hand,articulated good reasons why all board mem-bers should not be CEOs. A number arguedthat CEOs tend to hold narrow views, focus-ing on short-term financial outcomes to theexclusion of issues that might enhance cor-porate performance in the longer term. Onewoman director said: ‘‘Trying to get moreCEOs is detrimental. There is a need for abroader understanding of the world.’’Another claimed that CEOs ‘‘come at orga-nizational issues from a very ivory towerperspective.’’ A male CEO explained thevalue of broadening the board beyond ‘‘thetypical collection of CEOs:’’

We try to get different people fromdifferent sectors on the board torepresent different constituenciesincluding education, high net worth,business CEO, global experience,

marketing, different things. Youdon’t have the good-old-boy network– cigars and brandy, language. I thinkthings have progressed a lot furtherthan people realize. It leads to betterboard dynamics. It leads to moreresponsible decision-making becauseyou’re getting all the right kind ofviews on the issues, whether businessor human resources, all sorts of thingsthat need it (Male CEO).

To add more women, boards need tobroaden their views on the qualificationsneeded for a corporate directorship, andthe recruitment and selection process mustbe adjusted to generate a more diverse set ofboard candidates. As one woman said, nomi-nating committees can consider skill sets anddemonstrated accomplishments to identifyqualified candidates who are not Fortune1000 CEOs. She described how this processcan be put into action:

We had a skills inventory – what skillsdo people bring to the board, andwhat skills does the board need?We needed a sitting CFO of a Fortune500 company, and we interviewed anumber of women and a Hispanicman, who ended up on the board.Everyone is competent and qualifiedand fits into the skills matrix. No oneis brought on as a token (Womandirector).

One male CEO explained how his boardadded multiple women in this way. ‘‘One ofthe rules we developed was that when you’rerecruiting, you have to have one legitimatefemale candidate and one legitimate minor-ity candidate. Once we started that, peoplefound lots of qualified candidates.’’ A strongselection process helps women to succeedfrom the beginning because only highly qua-lified women are brought onto the board. Asone woman explained, ‘‘The boards I’mon wouldn’t recruit anyone who neededgrooming. They do very thorough research– two to three search firms are used.’’

161

The current generation of women direc-tors is a good source for identifying morewomen. One woman director said, ‘‘Just asnominating committees take recommenda-tions from the men on the board, they shouldtake recommendations from the women.They don’t necessarily think to do this. Thisis a good, rich source of new directors – theyknow lots of women. It is important to havewomen on the nominating committee.’’ Asenior board recruiter at a major search firmconfirmed that, ‘‘Women chairs of nominat-ing committees are more interested in diver-sity of all kinds’’ than are male chairs.

Until a board has recruited a critical massof women, enlightened male directors canplay an important role in educating the restof the board on the business case for diver-sity, recommending that more women direc-

tors be added to the board, and supportingthe women directors and making sure theyare fully included and heard. For specificsteps men can take to support women onboards, see Exhibit 4.

In summary, the focus on ‘‘traditional’’notions and practices in recruiting boardmembers does not serve the business needsof corporations. Finding qualified womenrequires abandoning traditional methods ofidentifying board members and acknowled-ging that achieving a truly diverse board is alegitimate goal. If your company does not yethave at least three women on the board, whatare you waiting for?


EXHIBIT 4 WHAT MEN CAN DO TO SUPPORT AND FIND WOMEN DIRECTORS?

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

For selected works on women corporatedirectors, see Susan M. Adams and PatriciaM. Flynn, ‘‘Actionable Knowledge: Consult-ing to Promote Women on Boards,’’ Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, 2005, 18,435–450; Deborah E. Arfken, Stephanie L.Bellar, and Marilyn M. Helms, ‘‘The UltimateGlass Ceiling Revisited: Women on CorporateBoards,’’ Journal of Business Ethics, 2004, 50,177–186; Diana Bilimoria, ‘‘The Relationshipbetween Women Corporate Directors andWomen Corporate Officers,’’ Journal of Man-agerial Issues, 2006, 18, 47–61; Diana Bilimoriaand Sandy Kristin Piderit, ‘‘Board CommitteeMembership: Effects of Sex-based Bias,’’ Acad-emy of Management Journal, 1994, 37, 1453–1477; David A. H. Brown, Debra L. Brown,and Vanessa Anastasopoulos, Women onBoards: Not Just the Right Thing. . . But the‘‘Bright’’ Thing (Conference Board of Canada,2002); Zena Burgess and Phyllis Tharenou,‘‘Women Board Directors: Characteristics ofthe Few,’’ Journal of Business Ethics, 2002, 37,39–49; Ronald J. Burke and Mary C. Mattis(Eds.), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors:International Challenges and Opportunities(Kluwer, 2000); 2005 Catalyst Census of WomenBoard Directors of the Fortune 500 (New York:Catalyst); Val Singh and Susan Vinnicombe,‘‘Why So Few Women Directors in Top UKBoardrooms? Evidence and TheoreticalExplanations,’’ Corporate Governance, 2004,12, 479–488; Val Singh, Susan Vinnicombe,and Siri Terjesen, ‘‘Women Advancing ontothe Corporate Board,’’ in Diana Bilimoria andSandy Kristin Piderit (Eds.), Handbook onWomen in Business and Management (Elgar,

2007, 304–329); Deborah Dahlen Zelechowskiand Diana Bilimoria, ‘‘Characteristics ofWomen and Men Corporate Inside Direc-tors,’’ Corporate Governance, 2004, 12, 337–342.

For selected works on tokenism and cri-tical mass, see Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men andWomen of the Corporation (Basic Books, 1977);Sumru Erkut and Winds of Change Founda-tion, Inside Women’s Power: Learning from Lea-ders (Wellesley Centers for Women, 2001);Laura M. Graves and Gary N. Powell, ‘‘Sex,Sex Similarity and Sex Diversity Effects inTeams: The Importance of Situational Fac-tors,’’ in Diana Bilimoria and Sandy KristinPiderit (Eds.), Handbook on Women in Businessand Management (Elgar, 2007, 217–231); AlisonM. Konrad, Susan Winter, and Barbara A.Gutek, ‘‘Diversity in Work Group Sex Com-position: Implications for Majority and Min-ority Members,’’ Research in the Sociology ofOrganizations, 1992, 13, 115–140; Pamela S.Tolbert, Mary E. Graham, and Alice O.Andrews, ‘‘Group Gender Composition andWork Group Relations: Theories, Evidence,and Issues,’’ in Gary N. Powell (Ed.), Handbookof Gender and Work (Sage, 1999, 179–202).

For selected works on the influence ofminorities and majorities in decision-makinggroups, see Rod Bond, ‘‘Group Size andConformity,’’ Group Processes & IntergroupRelations, 2005, 8, 331–354; Solomon E. Asch,‘‘Opinions and Social Pressure,’’ ScientificAmerican, 1955, 193, 31–35; Serge Moscovici,‘‘Social Influence and Conformity,’’ in G.Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook ofSocial Psychology, 3rd Ed., Vol. 2 (RandomHouse, 1985, 347–412).

Alison M. Konrad, Ph.D., joined the Richard Ivey School of Business,University of Western Ontario in 2003 as a professor of organizational

163

behavior and holder of the Corus Entertainment Chair in Women inManagement. Previously, she was professor of human resource admin-istration at Temple University’s Fox School of Business and Management,where she taught for 15 years. She was chair of the Academy ofManagement’s Gender and Diversity in Organizations Division in 1996–1997 and received the Division’s Sage Scholarship Award for contribu-tions to the field of gender and diversity in organizations in 1998. Shewas named a Fellow of the Eastern Academy of Management in 2004. Shehas published two books and over 50 articles and chapters on topicsrelated to workplace diversity. She can be contacted by e-mail [email protected] (University of Western Ontario).

Vicki W. Kramer, Ph.D., principal of V. Kramer & Associates, helpsorganizations and individuals increase their effectiveness. She has morethan 30 years of leadership experience in workplace issues, humanrelations and women’s leadership issues, and management. She providesconsulting and group facilitation to organizations; provides executivecoaching to individuals; and conducts research. Clients represent a widerange of major businesses, professional firms, nonprofits, and govern-ment agencies. She represents the Forum of Executive Women,Philadelphia, on the executive committee of ION—a national networkof eight regional executive women’s organizations working to increasethe number of women on corporate boards and in executive positions.She earned her B.A. from Wellesley College and her Ph.D. from HarvardUniversity (V. Kramer & Associates).

Sumru Erkut, Ph.D., is an associate director and a senior researchscientist at the Wellesley Centers for Women where her work focuses onracial/ethnic diversity and gender equity in leadership and developmentacross the life course. She has a doctorate in social psychology fromHarvard University. She has analyzed data from interviews with diversewomen leaders, which resulted in Inside Women’s Leadership. She hascollaborated in a study on barriers to women and minority’s upwardmobility for the U.S. Department of Labor, Glass Ceiling Commission, agender equity survey at a large medical center, and a study of success forwomen and minorities in high technology sales. Her most recent work onleadership is a study of women on corporate boards of directors(Wellesley Centers for Women).


mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Critical Mass