As today is International Women's Day 2017, I thought it would be appropriate to upload a recent thesis I completed for my Human Resource module.

1. The Case for Gender Equality is Strong.
Why is Progress So Slow?
Human Resource Management
Professor Helga Albrechtsen
Autumn 2016
Exam Number – 9
Student ID – FRS 593
Word Count – 8, 471

2. 2
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................3
Research Question...........................................................................................................................................4
Structure Of This Thesis...............................................................................................................................4
Human Resource Management................................................................................................................5
What Is Human Resource Management?..............................................................................................5
‘Hard’ versus ‘Soft’ Human Resource Management..........................................................................5
Diversity Management.................................................................................................................................6
Literature Review............................................................................................................................................7
Corporate Governance and Corporate Boards of Directors...........................................................7
Diversity On Boards.......................................................................................................................................7
Gender Balance – Why is it Important?.................................................................................................9
Barriers Women Can Face..........................................................................................................................9
How Can Gender Balance Be Accomplished?.....................................................................................11
Which Countries Have Adopted Quotas?.............................................................................................12
Women on Boards – Possible Effect On Performance....................................................................13
Quotas: Pros and Cons................................................................................................................................13
The Norwegian Experience.......................................................................................................................14
The UK Voluntary Code..............................................................................................................................16
Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 18
Data ...................................................................................................................................................................18
Interviews........................................................................................................................................................18
Conclusion and Further Perspective ................................................................................................. 22
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................22
The Future.......................................................................................................................................................24
References......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 28
Interview Questions.....................................................................................................................................28

3. 3
Introduction
Since the end of World War II, women have made massive advances in all walks of life -
education, the workplace and in politics across the world. However, these gains have not
translated into significant increases in female leadership in business and politics.
In 2009, the U.S Bureau of Labour Statistics reported that women made up 51% of all those
in high-paying management, professional and related occupations.
In business, as you go up the seniority ladder female representation falls. Even though 45%
of the workforce in Europe is female, only 11.9% are women on companies’ Boards of
Directors. 9.9% in the Americas, dropping to 6.5% in the Asia-Pacific region, and only 3.2% in
the Middle East and North Africa.
In recent years areas such as Board composition, corporate governance, CSR (corporate
social responsibility) etc have been questioned. In addition, the make up of company Boards
has been examined as a result of the economic crisis of the late 2000’s and many recent
corporate scandals. As a result, the diversity of company Boards in terms of quality and
greater balance and inclusion of women is gathering more attention among companies and
policy makers (Huse et al., 2009).
So is there a case for greater gender equality? Why are there still such differences between
the average workforce participation of women and those in senior positions? How can this
be changed and what constraints are there on women leaders? Are there benefits to
enabling women to become leaders and how can policy directives effect change?
This thesis sets out to answer these questions by examining countries that have
implemented gender quotas for women at Board level and those who have implemented
voluntary codes.
In particular, I will examine the change in legislation in Norway. In 2003, Norway was the
first country to introduce and pass a gender representation law requiring corporate Boards
to be made up of 40% women.
I will also examine those who choose to adopt softer measures, such as codes or other
voluntary mechanisms to increase the percentage of women on corporate boards (Nielsen
and Huse, 2012). I will examine the UK Government-backed Lord Mervyn Davies review that
provided for a higher voluntary target for the proportion of board seats held by women of
the FTSE 350 (Financial Times and the London Stock Exchange). Lord Davies review
suggested a third of all board seats at Britain’s biggest companies to be held by women by
2020.

4. 4
Research Question
The case for gender equality is strong. Why is progress so slow?
Structure Of This Thesis
This thesis is broken down into 5 main parts; a brief introduction into human resource
management and diversity management, the literature review, methodology, analysis and
conclusion.
Firstly, in the thesis I will introduce human resource management and diversity
management. I will then give a general overview on corporate Boards of Directors and
corporate governance. I will discuss the gender balance on corporate Boards of Directors
and the barriers that women can face in getting managerial positions and how can this
gender balance be achieved?
I will investigate the literature on gender quotas; which countries have adopted quotas, the
pros and cons of the quotas, the difference between men and women Board members. I
will then look into further detail on the Norwegian experience of the gender representation
law and compare this to the Lord Davies recommendations in the UK.

5. 5
Human Resource Management
What Is Human Resource Management?
Human resource management is the process of managing and organising human resources
or employees in the workplace. Personnel management evolved into human resource
management in the late 1980s / 1990s, to change the way in which managers manage
innovation, sustainable growth and to use employees effectively due to an increased
pressure of competitiveness in businesses around the World (Bratton, 2012).
Human resource management is an essential part of a business strategic plan for success
and a human resource manager has a wide variety of responsibilities. A key part of human
resource management is to develop and maintain a workforce that is both productive,
happy and create a high performing work system (Bratton, 2012). This could also mean
recruiting and training new staff or working with current staff to help them with career
growth or promotion; which in turn helps the company meet goals. A human resource
manager will also be involved in planning for a company’s future and adding to the
company’s competitive advantage. Reward systems are also the responsibility of a human
resource department including employee compensation, incentives and benefits package
(Bratton, 2012).
A human resource manager must be able to effectively address conflicts that may arise
between co-workers. In addition to these tasks the responsibilities of a human resource
manager also include worker protection, health and safety of employees, employee rights
and developing the organizational culture.
“Human Resource Management (HRM) is a strategic approach to managing employment
relations which emphasizes that leveraging people’s capabilities and commitment is critical
to achieving sustainable competitive advantages or superior public services. This is
accomplished through a distinctive set of integrated employment policies, programs and
practices, embedded in an organizational and societal context.”
(Bratton, 2012)
‘Hard’ versus ‘Soft’ Human Resource Management
Human resource management is divided into two concepts, hard and soft.
According to Bratton (2012) the soft concept model focuses on the individual / employee or
the ‘human’ aspect to human resource management. This model treats employees as the
most ‘valued asset’ in a business (Legge, 1995). Thereby supporting commitment, training
and development to ensure highly skilled workers give the company a competitive
advantage (Legge, 1995). Employees are more ‘pro-active’ in the work process in the soft
model (Legge, 1995).

6. 6
In contrast, Bratton (2012) explains the hard model focuses on the term ‘resource’. This
model treats the employees simply as any other economic factor / resource in a business,
for competitive advantage. Karen Legge (1995) describes the human resources as being
“passive” rather than ‘proactive’ in the business. The hard model is about having the
appropriate factors of production; the right people with the best skills at the lowest price.
Diversity Management
Diversity management is an important part to human resource management and in the
World’s increasing globalization it requires more interaction of people from diverse cultures.
Working with this diverse workforce is known as diversity management (Gold, 2012). Gold
(2012) describes diversity management as being an extension of the ‘promotion of equal
opportunities’. Although, the difference between these two drives towards diversity is that
equality of opportunity means everyone is treated equally. Equality of opportunity also
concentrates on concerns with gender and race. In contrast to this diversity management
accepts that people are different and uses these different qualities as a valuable asset to
create a competitive advantage. It broadens beyond just race and gender also supporting
concerns such as age, sexual orientation, ethnicity and disability (Gold, 2012: 201-3). Gold
(2012) gives examples of two companies that are addressing diversity management by hiring
diversity Directors. Gold (2012) also argues that meeting legal and moral requirements on
diversity is a benefit for companies.
In the Twenty First Century, every organisation is confronted with differences. Diversity
management is about benefiting from differences between men and women between black
and white, ethnic origin but also between age, education and experience. Having work-
place diversity means acknowledging difference, adapting work practices to create an
inclusive environment in which diverse skill, perspective and backgrounds are valued. It is
about understanding the individual difference that arises from a broad range of backgrounds
and lifestyles and recognizing the value of using these different perspectives and ideas in
ways of working to enhance the quality and outcome of work.
Later in this essay I will go into more detail concerning the gender diversity on Boards and
the stereotyping and discrimination problems women can have in managerial positions in a
company.

7. 7
Literature Review
Corporate Governance and Corporate Boards of Directors
Nearly all companies are constructed and managed by a corporate Board of Directors, that
provides governance for the company.
The Board is a very important part of a company. It has a number of different functions and
responsibilities; the most important role is representing the shareholders, investors and
founders of a company and being the network between these shareholders and the CEO of
the company (Kang et al., 2007).
Corporate Boards have a responsibility to ensure that decisions are made in the best
interests for the company. (Marlin, Geiger, 2012). Furthermore, the Board is there to give
direction to management teams and implement decisions with guidance and advice while
monitoring risks. (Pande, Ford, 2011).
Since the recent financial crisis in 2008, the role as a corporate Board member has become
increasingly more important. Shareholders and the owners of companies started asking
questions about concerns on the performance of the company and demanding improved
corporate governance (Kang et al., 2007). The Directors should be thinking like a
shareholder, spending the company’s money as if it is their own; questioning capital
expenditure and risks that are being taken. The shareholders are trusting the Boards to
make decisions on their behalf . Directors must have the ability to challenge the CEO and
management team.
Boards of Directors have a job to do and that is to represent the interests of the
shareholders. Business is conducted in a way that supports and represents the interests of
the shareholder. It is the Board’s job to make the company more valuable for all
shareholders and stakeholders.
A key to the effectiveness of corporate governance in an organisation is the flow of
information. The right information needs to get to the right people at the right time. Not
enough or inaccurate information can lead to ill informed decisions but with too much
information you can lose focus on what is actually suppose to be important.
The objective to corporate governance is to apply checks and balances to activities so that
better decisions can be made. Essentially, corporate governance enables the business to be
more successful through better decision making.
Diversity On Boards
According to Van Der Walt and Ingley (2003) there is no clear definition of Board diversity.
Essentially a functioning Board should be diverse in its composition - background,
experience, attitudes and characteristics.

8. 8
According to Kang et al (2007) diversity of Boards is broken into two categories; visible
demographics and less visible. Visible demographics comprise of age, gender, ethnic
background, religion and nationality. Less visible demographics of diversity include;
professional background, knowledge, occupational history, skills education and industry and
life experience.
Board diversity has a positive affect on a company. Numerous studies acknowledge that
diverse Boards initiate strategic changes more effectively and increase the exchange of ideas
and lead to better performance (Siciliano, 1996). Many now believe that this type of diverse
structure creates a safeguard against the single-minded “group-think” that some blame for
the 2008 / 09 financial crisis. Board diversity represents a balanced composition of different
backgrounds, value systems and experiences. Therefore, Board diversity can create long-
term shareholder confidence and value.
Carter et al (2003) provides another study proving that there is a strong correlation between
Board diversity, improving performance and increasing the financial value of a company.
An advantage to having members of the Board with different cultural backgrounds means
different questions are asked that might not be asked by those with a more traditional
background. This can provoke a more diverse debate that can then lead to better decision
making for the company (Arfken et al., 2004)
Rose (2007) argues that companies and organisations have such a wide range of
shareholders. Members of the Board represent these shareholders. Therefore, corporate
Boards should reflect or mirror the diverse world and representing society as a whole.
Van Der Walt and Ingley state that boardroom diversity refers to the mix of human
(intellectual and social) capital – where human capital is defined as the skills, general or
specific, acquired by an individual in the course of training and experience.
Rose (2007) states that Board diversity also relates heavily with the equal treatment of men
and women. A recurring theme in the corporate world today refers to women in managerial
positions. Take Norway as an example. In 2003, Norway was the first country to introduce
and pass a gender representation law requiring corporate boards to be made up of 40%
women.
“Indeed, many leading corporations have been effective in hiring women and minorities to
mirror their increasingly diverse markets and win over new customers but they have been
less successful in retaining and promoting those hired”
“Women no longer need a boarding pass they need an upgrade”.
(Kossek et al, 2006: 59)

9. 9
Kossek et al. (2006) outlines in these two quotes that women and other minorities are being
hired into companies but they are not being promoted. This is proof that progress is so
slow.
Gender Balance – Why is it Important?
Across the business world, the issue of gender equality on corporate Boards of Directors is
becoming increasingly recognised. Measures are being taken and policies put in place to
make a more gender balanced Board. Corporate Boards should reflect the reality of the
population and society as a whole.
It has been demonstrated in recent research that gender diversity is important in leadership
because teams perform better when they are gender diverse. Research around companies
that have women on their boards and in management perform better then companies that
do not.
“There is a positive correlation between the proportion of women in the top management
and the organisational and financial performance of the companies”.
(Borisova, Sterkhova 2012)
However, according to the Europeans Commission report; Gender balance on corporate
boards (2015) of the largest publicly recognised companies in the EU show only an
estimated 21.2% of these Board members are women. There has been an increase of 9.2%
since 2010, but women are still under-represented.
Gender diversity on Boards can give a competitive advantage. By building a balanced Board
there are balanced skill sets and personalities. But more importantly people who are
prepared to make key decisions but challenge as well. Therefore firms without female
representation are at a greater disadvantage.
Barriers Women Can Face
According to European statistics there is very little difference between the percentage of
men or women employed in the EU (Eurostat, 2015). 60% of university graduates are
female (European Commission, 2015). However, these statistics are not reflected at
management level. Women are extremely under-represented. In this section I will outline a
number of existing barriers women face, which help to explain why progress is so slow.
A. Family Responsibilities
According to Hewlett and Luce (2005) survey, 37% of women chose to drop out of work for a
period during their career and 43% of women who have had children, drop out. In
comparison to only 24% of men ever dropping out. This provides evidence that parenthood
and family care can take priority over careers and women are more likely to take a break

10. 10
from their career to look after their children. If or when these women decide to come back
and join the work force again there can be a high cost of entry. The mothers will not be
around to look after their children so they will have to pay for childcare (Pande & Ford,
2011). This is an example of why progress is so slow.
This period of time away from work impedes career growth and there is depreciation in skill.
This can make it harder when trying to re-enter the work force. However, women can make
up for a lack of experience through higher-level education.
The European Commission (2015) states that 60% of university graduates are female.
However, progress is slow because the fewer, or missed years at work the less experience
women have and experience is important when selecting Board members.
Another barrier for women that proves progress is slow is that women can have different
career paths as a result of family responsibilities. Women are more likely to look for part-
time jobs or more flexible jobs but these usually have little promotion options. In the United
Kingdom in 2012, 13.58 million men were employed in full time work and 7.68 million
women. Compared to part-time employment; 2.01 million men and 5.86 million women
(Easton, 2012).
Trying to balance family life and work life can be very difficult. This is normally why women
take time out of work. But for those women that do stay at work the balance can be difficult
to achieve. It is normally socializing / networking with colleagues after work that suffers.
The less time women are out socializing with colleagues the smaller their professional
network and this can be a huge disadvantage to job advancement (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Women tend to be unavailable to work these extra outside work hours due to family
commitments (Broughton & Miller, 2009). Eagly and Carli (2007) suggest that socializing and
building your professional network is more important than qualifications and other job
specific skills. Without these it can be hard for women to progress in career advancement.
B. Lack of Role Models
Another barrier found in the literature review is the lack of role models. As seen in the
Davies report (2011), because there is low numbers of women on corporate Boards it means
there is a lack of role models for women in the work force. Women are therefore very
unlikely to aspire to be in a position on a corporate Board if they know they do not have an
opportunity and will not succeed. Davies (2011) describes it as a “circular challenge”. Which
makes progress slow.
C. Doing Gender
Culture and society create gender roles and norms which can have a negative effect on
women trying to get on corporate Boards. This is because traditionally the majority of Board
seats are filled with men and it is proving difficult to break through this tradition.

11. 11
D. Selection Systems
Pande and Ford (2011) discuss how the current selection system for choosing new Board
members can be bias and can be a reason why progress is so slow.
The majority of Board members are male, therefore when a new Board member needs to be
appointed it is these men who need search for a new candidate. This usually consists of the
current Board members using their existing networks of other male Board members and
senior managers. This narrows the search for new Board members down to a
predominantly male pool, if they are only concentrating on existing networks (Pande, Ford,
2011).
Women are not meeting the typical male criteria or the ‘old-boys network’, creating a clique
that outsiders cannot enter. (Edling et al. 2012). This bias selection system is another reason
why progress is slow.
How Can Gender Balance Be Accomplished?
Gender balance can be accomplished by hiring more women on corporate Boards of
Directors. Although, after analysing the literature review I have come to the conclusion that
it is not as simple as that.
Different countries and businesses have taken different measures to ensure gender balance
is achieved. These measures can be divided into hard and soft approaches.
The hard approach to achieving gender balance on corporate Boards are legislated gender
quotas (Pande & Ford, 2011). These legally binding quotas are the most effective way to
accomplishing gender balance because they are manditory. An example of a country which
has adopted this hard approach is Norway.
Norway was the first county to have a 40% gender quota and many countries have followed
since. Legislated gender quotas have been most effective due to the repercussions that they
can have on a company if they do not adhere to the quota. For example liquidating the
company (The Economist Explains, 2015).
The soft approach taken to accomplish gender balance is the voluntary gender quota (Pande
& Ford, 2011). The United Kingdom is an example of this approach. Softer measures are
taken. For example voluntary commitments of targets and mentoring programs to help
women get the experience they need to be on corporate Boards (Pande & Ford, 2011).
The European Commission’s (2015) report states that with the support of the European
Parliament and member states a legislation for gender quotas on Boards is needed for
gender balance to be reached.

12. 12
“At the current rate of change it will take over 70 years to achieve gender-balanced
boardrooms in the UK.”
(Davies, 2011)
This quote was taken from the Davies Report 2011 ‘Women on Boards’. We can see from
this why progress is slow and that there is no quick fix to gender balance on corporate
Boards unless it is put into legislation. Although, legislated quotas have caused some
debate.
A study on “What Board Directors Really Think of Gender Quotas”, by Wiersema and Mors
(2016) highlights this debate.
Wiersema and Mors interviewed over 60 male and female Board members in both the
United States and Europe. The U.S has neither voluntary nor legislated quotas and in Europe
there are a number of countries with one or the other. The response from female Board
members in Denmark was that they argued against the gender quotas. They believe that
quotas lead to Boards having no choice but to pick unqualified women. The United States’
Board members, who were majority men, had similar views as Denmark. Although some
women in the U.S are beginning to realise something needs to be done to increase female
representation because it is not happening without quotas and the majority would like to
see quotas being introduced.
Which Countries Have Adopted Quotas?
As explained above there are two streams of gender quotas that have been adopted by a
number of countries to create a gender balance on corporate Boards of Directors. Voluntary
and legislated gender quotas.
Norway was the first country to adopt a legislated gender quota and since then a number of
countries have followed. Gender quotas on corporate Boards have brought about huge
debate within Europe and whether the European Union should enforce them. Countries
which have adopted gender quota laws following Norway are Spain, France, Italy, Belgium
and Germany (Wiersema, Mors, 2016). All of the aforementioned countries have adopted
hard measures on gender quotas on corporate boards. The quotas are in legislation -
although Norway is the only country that has reached its target. This is probably due to
Norway having sanctions if companies do not comply the law; no other countries have
sanctions (Pande, Ford, 2011).
Countries that have adopted corporate governance codes or voluntary measures are
Denmark, United Kingdom, Sweden, Ireland and Finland.

13. 13
Women on Boards – Possible Effect On Performance
Borisova and Sterkhova (2012) confirm that there is a positive correlation between women
on corporate Boards and the company’s performance. A survey was carried out on 362
companies with a minimum of two women on corporate Boards, from European and BRIC
countries. The results concluded that these companies perform better on equity return and
EBIT - Earning Before Interest and Tax (Borisova, Sterkhova 2012). This shows that there are
many positive effects to having more women on corporate Boards of Directors.
Quotas: Pros and Cons
Gender quotas have a number of positive and negative aspects, which Pande and Ford
(2011) outline clearly by looking at two perspectives, the pros and cons of equity and
efficiency.
Positives
Pande and Ford (2011) give two examples of the evaluation on the positive side to gender
quotas.
Firstly, looking at the equity aspect on this topic, the authors argue that quotas ‘reserve’
seats on Boards for women as a result of the fact that most Boards have a majority of men.
This allows for the representation of women on Boards to increase. This enables women to
avoid / bypass any undeserved discrimination that can arise when women are applying for
leadership roles.
The second positive argument, pro-quotas Pande and Ford (2011) discuss, is as a result of
gender quotas increasing the number of females on corporate Boards. This means that
women have more say in the decision making process. The interests of women are
therefore being represented. Women can have different views to men, for example on
certain policies being implemented and by having a good representation of both genders it
allows for a more diverse opinion to drive decision-making.
The positive points outlined by Pande and Ford (2011) on the efficiency of gender quotas is
that having women on corporate Boards brings an added value to a company and gives a
company a competitive advantage. Borisova and Sterkhova (2011) quoted earlier in this
thesis demonstrate the positive correlation between the number of women on a corporate
Boards and the performance of that company. By excluding women, companies are at a
disadvantage. Gender quotas can also help to change social norms about women in
leadership positions and also decrease discrimination (Pande, Ford, 2011).
One of the barriers discussed earlier about women and corporate Board positions, was a
lack of role models. If there are no women in leadership roles then it is harder for other

14. 14
women to imagine and aspire to be on corporate Boards. By reserving seats on corporate
Boards, as a result of gender quotas, enables more women to get these leadership positions.
Therefore creating female role models that can give guidance and first-hand experience to
other women (Pande, Ford, 2011). Pande and Ford (2011) suggest that the more role
models for women, the more women invest in careers and education.
Negatives
The negative aspect to quotas that the authors Pande and Ford (2011) discuss under equity,
is that the gender quota is reserving seats on the corporate Boards for the gender minority,
females. These reserved seats can take places away from other minority groups. These
groups can then be even more unrepresented.
Another negative, which has created huge debate in countries that have legislated quotas is
that unqualified women are being assigned seats they do not deserve and taking qualified
men’s positions.
Companies are forced into filling a certain number of corporate Board seats with women
and a number of these are inexperienced and unqualified for the job. This has a negative
effect on the company (Pande, Ford, 2011). If men on corporate Boards believe that some
of their female colleagues are unqualified for the role it can create a bad atmosphere in the
boardroom and could lead to men discriminating against the women (Pande, Ford, 2011).
Some women do not agree with gender quotas because they believe that it has made their
path to a leadership role easier. This can create a negative opinion on gender quotas and
women might boycott going for these roles as a result (Pande, Ford, 2011).
The Norwegian Experience
Norway, was the first country to break ‘the glass ceiling’ in corporate boardrooms. In 2003
Norway introduced gender quotas in the corporate boardroom. This meant that all publicly
listed companies had to have at least 40 per cent of each gender on the board.
The legislation gave companies up until 1st
of January 2008 to reach the new gender quota.
If companies did not comply with the legislation the Government had the right to delist the
company and the ability to completely dismantle it. All companies complied. (The
Economist Explains, 2015).
According to Sweigart (2012) before Norway introduced the legislated quota it initially had
voluntary quotas. Firms did not comply with the soft measures on quotas and very little
progress was made which led to hard measures being taken. The legislated quotas gave rise
to huge debate within the Norwegian Government and the public. Norway would not have
been able to reach their quota without the sanctions put in place. Pande and Ford (2011)
compare Spain’s gender quotas to Norway’s. Spain’s target was 40 per cent by 2015.

15. 15
According to a European Commission (2015) report published at the end of 2015, Spain only
have 16.8 per cent of women on corporate Boards. Spain does not have sanctions in place
for companies that do not comply with the law. Therefore the public limited companies in
Spain have not been forced to change (Pande, Ford, 2011).
Evidence by Storvik and Teigen (2010) show the political approach taken by Norway which
resulted in the legislated gender quota. The first ever proposal for gender quotas on
corporate Boards was put forward in 1999 by the Minister for Gender Equality at the time
(Storvik, Teigen 2010). It was then put forward again in 2001 but it was not until 2003 that
the Government submitted the proposal (Nergaard, 2003).
Although the proposal of the quota brought about huge debate, it was approved by a
majority of political parties (Teigen, 2011). Teigen (2011) outlines two issues brought up in
the debate. The issue of the effect quotas would have on profitability in companies and the
difficulty to find female Board members trained and qualified for a seat on corporate
Boards. This issue of unqualified women for the position has repeatedly risen in the
literature review by authors such as Pande and Ford Sweigart. Although Storvik and Teigen
(2010) stress that no issues with trying to find suitable females for Board positions have
been reported.
As seen in figure 1.1 taken from Strovik and Teigen (2011) report shows the small
percentage of women on corporate Boards in 2002 at only 6 per cent before the quotas
were introduced.
The shows very slow progress between 2002 up until the end of 2008 when the quota of 40
per cent was reached. As mentioned above if companies did not comply with quotas by the
end of 2008 they would be completely dismantled (The Economist Explains, 2015). The
graph also shows the percentage of female chairpersons on corporate Boards. This number
has only increased by 2 per cent in seven years even though there are at least 40 per cent
females on corporate Boards.
Figure 1.1 – The total percentage of women on corporate boards and the percentage of
female chairpersons over a 7 year period. Strovik, Teigen (2010)
6
9
12
18
25
36
40
3 3 2 2 3
5 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total Chairperson

16. 16
Gender quotas on corporate Boards have had a number of impacts in Norway. Sweigart
(2012) discusses these impacts. A group referred to as the “Golden Skirts”, are a group of
highly qualified women that have positions on a number of Boards. Although the
percentage of females on each Board increased from 6 to 40 percent the overall number of
women did not increase (Sweigart, 2012).
Pande and Ford (2011) also discuss this impact of the “Gold Skirts” although they do not use
the term to describe them. Pand and Ford (2011) mention that the Board positions held by
one person has increased from 4 to 8. This echos the theory behind the “Golden Skirts” and
that recruiters do not want to risk hiring less qualified people (Pande, Ford, 2011).
An overall view on the impacts some authors refer to is that the increase in the percentage
of women on corporate Boards in Norway was the result in a loss in companies (Sweigart,
2012). According to Strovik and Teigen (2011) female Board members tend to be younger
with better education but less experience; although history in occupation and skills have
little difference between male and female.
Another impact that arose in Norway discussed by Pande and Ford (2011) is from before
quotas were put into legislation. After the gender quota was passed there was a sudden
increase in private limited companies and a decrease in public limited companies. The
gender quota was targeting public limited companies, therefore these companies which
changed their status did so to avoid the quota and avoid having 40 per cent of females on
the board (Pande, Ford, 2011). A number of companies also decided to register in the
United Kingdom rather than Norway. Another alternative to having to obey with the gender
quota (Pande, Ford, 2011). Although, Pande and Ford (2011) do mention that there is no
hard evidence to prove that these moves were directly linked to the implementation on the
quota.
The UK Voluntary Code
According to the Lord Davies (2015) report in 2011 only 11 per cent of people voted for a
legislated gender quota to be imposed. This led to the rise in a voluntary code to attempt to
fix the gender imbalance on corporate Boards of Directors (Davies, 2015).
According to Davies (2015), the United Kingdom is now sixth in Europe with the highest
percentage of women on corporate Boards. The voluntary code proves to be working for
the UK “each and every month the percentage of women on the FTSE Boards’ increase”.
(Davie, 2015) FTSE – Financial Times Stock Exchnage.
The UK has just under half female representation in the labour force at 46 per cent or 14.5
million in 2014 (Catalyst, 2016). According to Davies (2015) the UK’s first voluntary target
for the number of women on corporate Boards was 25 per cent to be reached on FTSE 100
companies in five years, by 2015. Of these 100 companies, 55 now have 25 per cent and

17. 17
above, female representation. This is a huge increase from only 12 companies in 2011
(Davies, 2015).
Davies (2015) explains that the target would not have been met without a number of FTSE
Chairmen who helped lead the movement. These Chairmen discuss the positive impacts
that having a diverse corporate boardroom has had, such as more challenged debates, a
more diverse perspective and it has improved decision making.
Another action taken to help drive the progress was that firms conducted a ‘Standard Code
of Conduct’ to help with recruiting the women for Board positions (Davies, 2015).
Davies (2015) reports that there were concerns that the voluntary code would give rise to
the so called “Golden Skirts” which would not have allowed an increase the pool of talented
women in the boardroom. Although this was not the case, only 32 out of 244 women sit on
more than one Board in the FTSE 100 and 109 out of 535 on the FTSE 350 (Davies, 2015).
In research by Davies (2015) he gives background information on the 201 new female
directors, their prior experience and education. 61 of the newly appointed women had
academic Board experience, 122 had non-profit Board experience, 27 women had
government Board experience, 169 had private company Board experience and 22 per cent
had no previous Board experience (Davies, 2015). Overall this shows that women are very
well educated, highly qualified and capable for Board positions in the UK. The average age
of the women appointed to Board positions is 55.5 years ranging from 39 to 69 years
(Davies, 2015).
The UK has now set a new target of 33 per cent of FTSE 350 companies to be reached by
2020 (Davies, 2015).

18. 18
Methodology
In this section I will discuss and explain the methods used to gather the findings discussed in
the essay. A qualitative approach was taken in the form of interviews and other sources
through books, articles, websites and reports along with quantitative research in reviewing
statistical records.
Data
As explained above, both quantitative and qualitative data was gathered to help answer the
research question.
Quantitative data is usually in numerical format such as statistics. These statistics were
found in a number of sources; Eurostat, European Commission reports and Lord Davies
report on the UK and were used to get a clear understanding of the lack of gender balance
on corporate Boards of Directors and the measures countries have taken to try improve this
problem in the forms of quotas or voluntary codes and the results found from these
improvements.
The qualitative approach was taken to gather information in the form of interviews. The
interviews helped get a primary insight into the opinions of both a male and female Board
member on quotas and why they think progress is so slow.
The other qualitative information gathered was through course readings, books, reports,
articles and websites on the topics of gender diversity, corporate Boards and two case
studies Norway and the UK.
Interviews
I organised two face-to-face interviews with corporate Board members in Ireland in
November 2016. I interviewed both Board members seperatly to avoid any bias and the
board members did not sit on the same Boards.
One male and one female Board member were interviewed to get a gender balanced
background and opinion on quotas. The interviews were performed to gather information
to help argue why progress is so slow.
Analysis of Interviews
I asked both candidates the same questions to make it easier to compare opinions. After
recording and transcribing the interviews I was able to start the analysis on them. Denis
Patrick Murphy is highly educated studying his Bachelors Degree at Trinity College, Dublin
and an MBA at Harvard Business School, Boston. Mr Murphy has been in executive roles
and senior executive roles at Bank Or Ireland. After retiring he was offered a number of
seats on corporate Boards of Directors in areas such as manufacturing, hospitality, health,
publishing and private equity. Mr Murphy has also been a Chairman on a number of Boards.

19. 19
I chose to interview Mr Murphy due to his extensive experience with corporate Boards and
as a more senior Board member it would be interesting to see a more traditional and “old-
boys networkers” opinion on gender quotas (Edling et al. 2012).
The second person I interviewed is Lisa Dillon. Ms Dillon studied her Bachelors Degree and
MBA at Trinity College, Dublin and recently completed a further diploma in Company
Direction at the Institute of Directors. Lisa currently sits on three Boards, two inside sales
industry groups and an Irish Government Agency Board. I chose to interview Lisa because
she is one of a few female Board members in Ireland who has gone through extensive
training and hard work to prove herself a position on a corporate Board.
Board Member Qualities
Mr Murphy describes the main qualities expected of Board members to have are
experience, independence, objectivity, commitment to high standards of governance and an
ability to work with others. Mr Murphy believes that diversity, whether it be gender or
background experience, is important. He also mentions that knowledge of the industry in
which the company operates is also desirable.
Ms Dillon breaks down the two main areas of focus of Board members.
The first focus is on performance - focus on the future performance of the business,
undertaking the responsibilities to make policy and formulate strategy. This involves
establishing vision, mission and value, determine strategy, ensure structure and capability
are appropriate, delegate to management, exercise accountability to shareholders and have
regard to shareholders.
The second focus area is conformance. This is executive supervisions and accountability,
which involves monitoring management’s performance, conform to statutory duties and
requirements and ensuring risks are managed.
As such, Ms Dillon believes good qualities for a Board member are understanding their
duties fully, sound judgement, good leadership skills and the ability to be involved in all
areas of decision-making and not just in someone’s own area of expertise.
Barriers Faced By Women
Murphy describes traditional Board membership to be predominantly male. He argues that
when companies started to appoint women to Boards, progress was very slow.
Men wanted the status quo and were reluctant to accept women due to many factors such
as tradition, insecurity and so on. Another issue arose where some companies forced the
issue and ended up appointing women for the sake of it. In some cases these women were
not qualified for these roles. This set back progress for some time.

20. 20
Murphy argues that in many businesses, women did not go through the same management
training and executive development and experience that men experienced. Their roles were
stereotyped and as a result some were ill equipped for Board roles. Equal opportunity in
this area is vital in removing barriers to women being appointed to Boards. One of the main
barriers is the attitude of male Board members. Ideally quotas should be underpinned by
equal development and mentoring for women.
Dillon argues that in order for anyone to be appointed to a Board, it is important to have a
good network and reputation, to have confidence in one’s own abilities, to have shown
senior leadership in corporate or public sector. She also mentions that she believes formal
qualifications in company direction can be a great help, for example the Diploma in
Company Direction.
Dillon also believes that women tend not to network as well as men, do not have as much
confidence in their own abilities as men and that there is a much smaller percentage of
females in senior positions. Lisa also believes that companies need to be encouraged to
allow their senior leaders to be on Boards and she described a personal experience of hers
having to go through a lot of approvals in Oracle and Microsoft to get appointed to
Enterprise Ireland to ensure there was no conflict of interest.
Gender Quotas - Are Gender Quotas Needed?
Murphy states that “in an ideal World quotas should not be necessary, nor should
regulations. But the free market does not always work like that.” Often guidelines and
sometimes, sanctions are necessary. In the case of gender diversity on Boards, whilst there
are many fine examples of progress, Murphy believes the application of quotas is still
necessary. Murphy argues of the advantages and disadvantages to companies adopting
quotas.
On the one hand quotas force the issue of gender and on the other hand in some cases ill
equipped women were appointed and this probably set back the initiative. Although, he
argued that this does not in all cases mean that all women were not as good as all men. But
newly appointed women may be judged more harshly than men.
In contrast, Dillon does not think that gender quotas are needed. However, she does believe
there should be targets to strive for and action items in place to get there. In other words
she would like to see voluntary codes for gender quotas. Dillon agrees with Murphy that
when quotas are in place they are misrepresentative of the women that are qualified to be
on a Board, unqualified women may be on Boards. However she notes that there are plenty
of qualified women in the workforce that are not being provided the opportunity to be on a
Board.
Gender Balanced Boards
Murphy feels that gender balanced Boards where both sexes are capable and qualified are,
undoubtedly, positive. He notes that his assessment of a Board would rate diversity very

21. 21
highly, be it gender, age or experience. Dillon also agrees with Murphy, that gender balance
Boards will be far more effective. Women bring a different perspective to the discussion.
She also believes that women and men working together is far more effective and is more
collaborative than men on their own.
Interviewees’ Personal Journey
Murphy gave an account of his first Board appointment. It came after a number of years in
management and executive roles. He experienced a lot of executive development and
learned from some outstanding leaders. Then, over time, his experience and reputation
earned him wider recognition. This resulted in invitations to positions as non-executive
Director and, ultimately Chairman of a number of companies. His standards, business,
ethical and morals are high and these are very important in a Director.
Dillon’s journey started about 4 years ago. She started to network more externally to her
organisation. She got involved in networks such as the American Association of Inside Sales
Professionals (AA-ISP) and The Sales Institute of Ireland. She also spoke at a number of
events. Along with, as already mentioned above studying for 1 year and qualified in a
Diploma in Company Direction, run by the Institute of Directors. Dillon registered with the
website stateboards.ie and was informed of all open State Board positions that became
available. This is where Dillon applied for Enterprise Ireland and was successful.

22. 22
Conclusion and Further Perspective
Conclusion
The case of gender equality is strong. Why is progress so slow?
Since World War II there has been huge progress in women in the workplace. Every year
there are more and more women joining the labour force. Taking the UK as an example, just
under half at 46 per cent of the workforce, are female. In general the labour market has
become a lot more gender equal.
A dominant attitude is that gender diversity on Boards can have only but positive affect on
companies. “The diversity of company Boards in terms of quality and greater balance and
inclusion of women is gathering more attention among companies and policy makers” (Huse
et al., 2009).
However, when it comes to leadership positions the gap between the genders is sizeable -
only 11.9% are women on companies’ Boards of Directors. 9.9% in the Americas, dropping to
6.5% in the Asia-Pacific region, and only 3.2% in the Middle East and North Africa (Pande,
Ford, 2011).
As a result of this slow progress different approaches are being adopted to try and tackle
this issue and build gender-balanced Boards. The three streams of measures being followed
are legislated quotas, voluntary codes and / or no quotas at all.
“The countries with highest percentage of Board seats filled by women are Norway (40.1%),
Sweden (33.7%), and France (33.5%) lead the way. French companies in the CAC 40 index
must meet a quota of 40% women on boards by a 2017 deadline.
As of October 2015, 26.1% of FTSE 100 company Board positions were filled by women, up
from just 12.5% in February 2011.
At MSCI USA Index companies, women held 19.1% of directorships as of August 2015, up
from 17.9% in 2014.”
(Orsagh, 2016)
I have used two case studies to draw on and explain the potential effect of these legislated
quotas or voluntary codes.
Norway was the first country to adopt a legislated quota system with sanctions for
companies that do not comply. Norway stands at number one in Europe with the highest
number of female Board members. There was heated debate in Norway prior to quotas

23. 23
being legislated. However, all companies complied and now all publicly quoted companies
have 40 per cent female representation.
The example used for voluntary quotas is the UK. A target of 25 per cent for female
representation on Boards was reached in 2015 and new targets of 33 per cent have now
been set by 2020. While this is an example of a country where voluntary codes are working
the progress is slow - Spain, another country with voluntary quotas has a target of 40 per
cent that should have been reached by 2015 - it is still only at 16.8 per cent.
As seen in this thesis, gender equality on corporate Boards of Directors is becoming
increasingly recognised, although progress is slow. Progress can be slow due to a number of
barriers women face today - family responsibilities, a lack of role models, doing gender and a
bias selection system.
In my anecdotal interviews, Murphy argues that in many businesses, women did not go
through the same management training and executive development and experience that
men experienced. Their roles were stereotyped and as a result some were ill equipped for
Board roles. Equal opportunity in this area is vital in removing barriers to women being
appointed to Boards. Ideally quotas should be underpinned by equal development and
mentoring for women.
Nadkarni et al (2015) state that “from 2004 to 2013, the average percentage of women on
executive teams in sampled firms rose from 7.6% to 11.7%. The trend of female executive
teams is positive, but the increase has been slow. Data provides surprising findings between
the top and bottom country comparisons on female executive team percentage. The U.K.
(11.13%), U.S. (12.7%) and Canada (14.24%) were not amongst the 10 top countries with the
highest percentage of female executive team members.”
“Only two of the top 10 countries are European (Finland and Norway). Norway, which has
the highest percentage of female Board members, ranks 9th and has only 15% of women in
their executive teams. Among sampled companies, Colombia (28.50%) had the highest
percentage of females in executive teams. Two European countries (Austria: 4.86% and
Germany: 1.80%) were among the bottom 10 countries. Japan (0.57%) had the lowest
percentage of females in executive teams among sampled rms, lower than U.A.E. (2.01%),
Saudi Arabia (1.71%) and Qatar (1.11%).” (Nadkarni et al, 2015)
In addition, Lisa Dillon argued that in order for anyone to be appointed to a Board, it is
important to have a good network and reputation, to have confidence in one’s own abilities,
to have shown senior leadership in corporate or public sector. She also believes that formal
qualifications in company direction can be a great help, for example the Diploma in
Company Direction.

24. 24
The Future
Regardless of gender, many senior executives who aspire to be Directors will get there more
quickly if there are formal ways or mechanisms that will help them develop the unique skills
that make them Board-ready. The key to success is that companies have a diverse and
engaged workforce necessary to achieve long-term, sustainable performance in a changing
economic and societal landscape.
Two types of intervention may be particularly important: opening up career paths for
women to engage in productive work and entrepreneurship, as well as lowering barriers to
moving into positions of responsibility and leadership. In addition, ensuring that women
receive education and training to help develop their talent and create opportunities.
There is a need to set targets for gender diversity on Boards, train to avoid unconscious bias,
support flexible working and career breaks for both genders, create mentor programs and
use the extended talent pools of Board-ready-women. Also, taking action to change
attitudes will be important, whether that’s through promoting role models, reducing bias
selections etc.
Finally, a continuing reason for the slow pace of change is that many Board roles are still
filled through existing male Directors’ networks. If the appointment process is fair, candidate
short-lists drawn from professional networks are not necessarily a bad thing. However,
women and men often network in different ways. This means there is not always visibility of
Board-ready women.
Current and aspiring Directors, of both genders, need to be deliberate about meeting and
building continuing connections with peers they do not already know and ensure they are
developing a network of both sexes.

25. 25
References
Arfken, D, Bellar, S, Helms, M. (2004) "The Ultimate Glass Ceiling Revisited: The Presence of
Women on Corporate Boards". Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 50, no. 2, pp 177-186
Borisova, D, Sterkhova, O. (2012) “Women as a Valuable Asset”. McKinsey & Company
Bratton, J. (2012) ‘The nature of contemporary HRM’, Human Resource Management.
Theory and Practice, Bratton & Gold, Palgrave Macmillan, no. 5, pp. 3 - 36
Broughton, A, Miller, L. (2009) Women in senior management: Is the glass ceiling still intact?
Is, Guc: The Journal of Industrial Relations & Human Resources, vol. 11 no. 4, pp 7-23
Carter, D, Simkins, B, Simpson, G. (2003) "Corporate Governance, Board Diversity, And Firm
Value". Financial Review, vol. 38, no. 1, pp 33-53.
Catalyst. (2016) Women in the Workforce UK. Available at:
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-workforce-uk. [Accessed on 12 December
2016]
Davies, M. (2015) “Improving the Gender Balance on British Boards”, Women on Boards
Davies Review. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/482059/BI
S-15-585-women-on-boards-davies-review-5-year-summary-october-2015.pdf. [Accessed on
10 December 2016]
Davies, M. (2011) Women on boards. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31480/11
-745-women-on-boards.pdf [Accessed 20 November 2016]
Eagly, A and Carli, L. (2007) “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership”, Harvard business
review, vol. 85, no 9, pp. 63-71.
Easton, M. (2012) “Which Jobs Have More Women Than Men?”, BBC News. Available at:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17287275 [Accessed on 24 November 2016]
Edling, C, Hobdari, B, Randoy, T, Stafsudd, A, Thomsen, S. (2012) “Testing the Old Boys’
Network: Diversity and Board Interlocks in Scandinavia”, The Small Wolrds of Corporate
Governance by Bruce Kogut, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 183- 202
European Commission. (2015) “Gender Balance on Corporate Boards – Europe is Cracking
the Glass Ceiling”. Pp 1-7
Eurostat – Statistics Explained. (2015) Employment Statistics. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

26. 26
explained/index.php/Employment_statistics#Employment_rates_by_sex.2C_age_and_educa
tional_attainment [Accessed 10 November 2016]
Gold, J. (2012) ‘The nature of contemporary HRM’, Human Resource Management. Theory
and Practice, Bratton & Gold, Palgrave Macmillan, no. 5, pp.
Hewlett, S and Luce, C. (2005) “Off-ramps and On-ramps: Keeping Talented Women on The
Road to Success”, Harvard business review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2005/03/off-ramps-
and-on-ramps-keeping-talented-women-on-the-road-to-success [Accessed 20 November
2016]
Huse, M, Nielsen, S, Hagen, I. (2009) "Women and Employee-Elected Board Members, and
their Contributions to Board Control Tasks". Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 89, no. 4, pp 581-
597.
Kang, H, Cheng, M, Gray, S. (2007) "Corporate Governance and Board Composition: Diversity
and Independence of Australian Boards". Corporate Governance: An International Review,
vol. 15, no. 2, pp 194-207.
Kossek, E, Lobel, S and Brown, J. (2006) Human Resource Strategies to Manage Workforce
Diversity: Examining ‘The Business Case’, A.M. Konard, P. Prasad and J. K, Pringle, (eds.),
Handbook of Workplace Diversity, London et al.: pp. 53 – 74.
Legge, K (1995), ’HRM: towards the flexible firm?’, in K. Legge, Human Resource
Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Houndmills et al.: Palgrave, p. 175 – 209.
Legge, K (1995), ’What is human resource management’, in K. Legge, Human Resource
Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Houndmills et al.: Palgrave, p. 101 – 133.
Marlin, D, Geiger, S. (2012) "The Composition of Corporate Boards of Directors: Does
Industry Matter?". Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER) vol. 10, no. 3: 157-160
Nadkarni, S, Yen Nee Oon, E, Chu, J. (2015) ‘Looking Beyond Corporate Boards: Divers of
Female Representation in Executive Roles’, Cambridge Judge Business School. Available at:
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/about_us/women/downloads/2016-
looking-beyond-corporate-boards.pdf [Accessed on 19 December 2016].
Natividad, I. (2010) “Corporate Women Directors International, 2010 CWDI Report:
Accelerating Board Diversity Globally.
Nergaard, K. (2003), Government Proposes Gender Quotas on Company Boards, European
Observatory for Working Life- Eurofound. Available at:
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articles/government-proposes-
gender-quotas-on-company-boards. [Accessed December 9 2016]

27. 27
Nielsen, S, Huse, M. (2012) 'How do Women Directors Make a Difference to the Work of
Corporate Boards: Evidence from Norway'. in R Nielsen & CD Tvarnø (eds), Scandinavian
Women's Law in the 21st Century. Djøf / Jurist- og Økonomforbundet, København, pp. 251-
263.
Orsagh, M. (2016) ‘The Current Status of Women on Boards in 2016: A Global Roundup’, CFA
Institute, 7 October. Available at:
https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/marketintegrity/2016/10/07/the-current-status-of-women-on-
boards-in-2016-a-global-roundup/ [Accessed on 19 December 2016].
Pande, R, Ford, D. (2011). "Gender Quotas and Female Leadership". World Development
Report 2012 Gender Equality and Development.
Rose, C. (2007) "Does Female Board Representation Influence Firm Performance? The
Danish Evidence". Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 15, no. 2, pp 404-
413.
Siciliano, J. (1996) "The Relationship of Board Member Diversity to Organizational
Performance". Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 15, no.12, pp 1313-1320.
Strovik, A, Teigen, M. (2010), Women on Boards: The Norweigen Experience, Friedrich Ebert
Stifung, Berlin, Germany, Pp. 1 - 14
Sweigart, A. (2012) Women on Boards for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas
as a Tool for Progress in the Uniter States and Canada, Northwestern Journal of International
Law & Business, no. 4, vol. 32, pp.81A – 105A
Teigen, M. (2011), Gender Quotas on Corporate Boards, Gender and Power in the Nordic
Countries – with focus on politics and business, NIKK Publications, Oslo, Norway, pp 87 –
109.
The Economist Explains. (2015) The Spread of Gender Quotas for Company Boards. Available
at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/03/economist-explains-14
[Accessed 15 November 2016]
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009) Employment and Earnings, 2009
Annual Averages and the Monthly Labor Review, vol. 132, no. 1, pp 1–206.
Van Der Walt, N, Ingley, C. (2003) "Board Dynamics and The Influence of Professional
Background, Gender and Ethnic Diversity of Directors". Corporate Governance, vol. 11, no. 3,
pp 218-234
Wiersema, M and Mors, M L. (2016) “What Board Directors Really Think of Gender Quotas”,
Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-board-directors-
really-think-of-gender-quotas [Accessed 20 November 2016]

28. 28
CFA Institute, Market Integrity Insights -
https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/marketintegrity/2016/10/07/the-current-status-of-women-on-
boards-in-2016-a-global-roundup/
Cambridge Judge Business School – Looking Beyond Corporate Boards: Drivers of Female
Representation in Executive Roles, Professor Sucheta Nadkarni, Dr Elaine Yen Nee Oon, Dr
Jenny Chu
Appendices
Interview Questions
1. What is your experience with Board Directorships?
2. What do you regard as good qualities for Board Members to have?
3. What barriers are in the way of women being nominated to Boards?
4. Do you think gender quotas are needed? What is your opinion on them?
5. There is debate around quotas as it may result in unqualified women on Boards. Do you
agree?
6. Do you think having gender balanced Boards will have a negative effect?
7. What journey did you personally feel you had to take to put yourself in a position to be
asked to join a Board?