Understanding resistance to sex and race-based affirmative action: A review of research findings

Where Are All the Women? Institutional Context and the Prevalence of Women on the Corporate Board of Directors

“…In particular, the findings presented here strongly suggest voluntary approaches to increasing board diversity do work. Although Norway's decision to introduce affirmative action resulted in a steep rise in the share of female board directors, this study suggests 'soft-law' approaches are effective too, offering an alternative to the more heavy handed approach of legislation, which has also been associated with some negative outcomes for the women concerned (Taylor-Carter et al, 1995). Some research into affirmative action, whilst not specifically focused on the board of directors, seems applicable in a board context.…”

“…Affirmative action initiatives are often aimed at benefiting women and ethnic minorities and may be adopted voluntarily by organisations or enforced through legislation (Taylor-Carter et al, 1995). Norway took the radical step of introducing affirmative action legislation to ensure an appropriate level of female board participation.…”

“…As Norway was one of the first countries to introduce affirmative action to encompass such a specific segment of societal power as the corporate board, very little research exists assessing its implications. The research that is available on affirmative action focuses on management and rank and file employees more generally (Slack, 1987;Holzer and Neumarket, 2000;Taylor-Carter et al, 1995;Heilman et al, 1997;French, 2001 (Heilman et al, 1997). Consequently, women are not always enamoured with affirmative action initiatives designed to benefit themselves (Taylor-Carter et al, 1995).…”

“…The research that is available on affirmative action focuses on management and rank and file employees more generally (Slack, 1987;Holzer and Neumarket, 2000;Taylor-Carter et al, 1995;Heilman et al, 1997;French, 2001 (Heilman et al, 1997). Consequently, women are not always enamoured with affirmative action initiatives designed to benefit themselves (Taylor-Carter et al, 1995). They observe that the more male the position in question is seen to be, the more incongruence there appears to be between the gender stereotype and the role: "…strong sex-typing of jobs serves to exacerbate the negative attributes made about females who are brought into the organization as a result of the policies" (Taylor-Carter et al, 1995, p 137).…”

“…Role incongruence occurs when a specific role resonates strongly with a particular type of person. When an individual who does not fit the stereotype is considered for such a role they are often deemed less suitable (Taylor-Carter et al, 1995). As board roles are generally perceived to be male in nature, role incongruence may cause women to be considered less able for the role.…”