On the same page? Differences between male and female board members on the benefits of a gender-balanced representation

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to analyze the interplay between male and female board members’ beliefs about women’s competence to fill board positions (valence), the perceived benefits of a greater gender-balanced boardroom (value) and the significance attributed to the gender quota law as a relevant instrument in eliciting change in board composition.Design/methodology/approachLooking through the lens of expectancy-value theory, the authors investigate whether the perceived benefits of a gender quota law mediate the path between the beliefs about women’s competence to become board members and the perceived benefits of a greater gender-balanced representation in the boardroom. In addition, the authors investigate whether female and male board members share the same beliefs about a gender-balanced representation.FindingsThe results show that there are differences in beliefs about women’s competencies to become board members and the perceived benefits of a greater gender-balanced boardroom. Female board members hold stronger beliefs on the competence of women to fill board positions and, thus, assign greater importance to the gender quota law, which, in turn, impacts the greater significance attributed to equal representation of women in the boardroom.Practical implicationsThe findings shed new light on the debate concerning gender quotas aimed at promoting gender-balanced boardrooms by pointing out that differences in value expectations between male and female board members may prevent intraboard gender-equal dynamics.Originality/valueThe study contributes to the literature by adding new insights on how male and female board members perceive the value of legally bound gender quotas, in association with their beliefs about women’s competence to fill board positions (valence) and their expectations in terms of the beneficial outcomes of a more gender-balanced board composition.