Drawing on 31 interviews, we explore the life trajectories of some of the women with most directorships in Norway after the introduction of the quota, with specific attention to their capitals. Adopting a Bourdieusian approach, we examine to what extent forced structural changes (the quota), challenge what are valued as legitimate capital(s) in the field (corporate boards). Our research demonstrates the progressive role of the quota in challenging gendered ideas of suitability. We found that structural adjustments in the field are leading to realignment in terms of the field-specific value and meaning of different types of capitals, which are redrawing the boundaries of the field in the process. We conclude that the external push through state-imposed regulation has broadened the field, resulting in the recognition of a wider set of capitals as legitimate. The study responds to the much-debated question about the utility of quotas in addressing systemic and historical inequalities.
AckerJ (2006) Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society20(4): 441–464.
2.
AdamsSFlynnP (2005) Local knowledge advances women’s access to corporate boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review13(6): 836–847.
3.
AhernKDittmarA (2012) The changing of the boards: the impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics127(1): 137–197.
4.
BaxterJWrightEO (2000) The glass ceiling hypothesis: a comparative study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Gender & Society14(2): 275–294.
5.
BourdieuP (1986) The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJG (ed.) The Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, 241–258.
6.
BourdieuP (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
BourdieuP (1998) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford University Press.
8.
BourdieuPWacquantL (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BøhrenØStauboS (2016) Mandatory gender balance and board independence. European Financial Management22(1): 3–30.
10.
Dale-OlsenHSchønePVernerM (2013) Diversity among Norwegian boards of directors: does a quota for women improve firm performance?Feminist Economics19(4): 110–135.
11.
DoldorEVinnicombeS (2015) Women’s pathways to the boardroom. Gender in Management: An International Journal30(7): 1. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2015-0062
12.
DoldorEVinnicombeSSealyR (2016) Accidental activists: headhunters as marginal diversity actors in institutional change towards more women on boards. Human Resource Management Journal26(3): 285–303.
13.
DunnP (2012) The role of gender and human capital on the appointment of new corporate directors to boardroom committees: Canadian evidence. International Business Research5(5): 16–25.
14.
EaglyAKarauS (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review109(3): 573–598.
15.
FaganCMenèndezMGAnsónSG (2012) Women on Corporate Boards and in Top Management: European Trends and Policy. Chippenham: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
FarréLVellaF (2013) The intergenerational transmission of gender role attitudes and its implications for female labour force participation. Economica80(318): 219–247.
17.
FerreeMMPurkayasthaB (2000) Equality and cumulative disadvantage: response to Baxter and Wright. Gender & Society14(6): 809–813.
18.
FerreiraD (2015) Board diversity: should we trust research to inform policy?Corporate Governance: An International Review23(2): 108–111.
19.
FitzsimmonsTCallanVPaulsenN (2014) Gender disparity in the C-suite. The Leadership Quarterly25(2): 245–266.
20.
GopalanSWatsonK (2015) An agency theoretical approach to corporate board diversity. San Diego Law Review52(1): 1–66.
21.
GrønmoSLøyningT (2003) Sosiale nettverk og økonomisk makt: overlappende styremedlemskap mellom norske bedrifter 1970–2000. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.
22.
HeidenreichVStorvikAE (2010) Rekrutteringsmønstre, erfaringer og holdninger til styrearbeid blant styremedlemmenes representanter. Oslo: ISF Rapport.
23.
HeilmannM (2001) Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues57(4): 657–674.
24.
HillmanACanellaAHarrisI (2002) Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: how do directors differ?Journal of Management28(6): 747–763.
25.
HughesMMPaxtonPKrookML (2017) Gender quotas for legislatures and corporate boards. Annual Review of Sociology43: 331–352.
26.
HuseM (2013) Characteristics and background of the Norwegian women directors. In: MacholdSHuseMHansenK, et al. (eds) Getting Women on Corporate Boards: A Snowball Starting in Norway. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 69–77.
27.
JohnsenS (2012) Women in work: The Norwegian experience. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Observer293(Q4): 6–7.
28.
KanterRM (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
29.
KingN (2004) Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: CassellCSymonG (eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: SAGE, 256–270.
30.
KirschA (2018) The gender composition of corporate boards: a review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly29(2): 346–364.
31.
LépinardÉRubio-MarínR (eds) (2018) Transforming Gender Citizenship. London: Cambridge University Press.
32.
LupuISpenceCEmpsonL (2017) When the past comes back to haunt you: the enduring influence of upbringing on the work–family decisions of professional parents. Human Relations71(2): 155–181.
33.
MacholdSHuseMHansenKBrogiM. (Eds.). (2013). Getting women on to corporate boards: A snowball starting in Norway. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
34.
Mensi-KlarbachHSeierstadC (in press) Gender quotas on corporate boards: similarities and differences of quota scenarios. European Management Review.
35.
O’NeilDHopkinsMBilimoriaD (2008) Women’s careers at the start of the 21st century: patterns and paradoxes. Journal of Business Ethics80(4): 727–743.
36.
ÖzbilginMTatliA (2005) Understanding Bourdieu’s contribution to organization and management studies. Academy of Management Review30(4): 855–869.
37.
ÖzbilginMTatliA (2011) Mapping out the field of equality and diversity: rise of individualism and voluntarism. Human Relations64(9): 1229–1253.
38.
RiggioHDesrochersS (2006) Maternal employment relations with young adults’ work and family expectations and self-efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist49(10): 1328–1353.
39.
SealyRSinghV (2010) The importance of role models and demographic context for senior women’s work identity development. International Journal of Management Reviews12(3): 284–300.
40.
SeierstadCOpsahlT (2011) For the few not the many? The effects of affirmative action on presence, prominence, and social capital of women directors in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Management27(1): 44–54.
41.
SeierstadCWarner-SøderholmGTorchiaM, et al. (2017) Increasing the number of women on boards: the role of actors and processes. Journal of Business Ethics141(2): 289–315.
42.
SinghVTerjesenSVinnicombeS (2008) Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ?European Management Journal26(1): 48–58.
43.
TatliA (2011) A multi-layered exploration of the diversity management field: diversity discourses, practices and practitioners in the UK. British Journal of Management22(2): 238–253.
44.
TatliAÖzbilginM (2012) An emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at work: a Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews14(2): 180–200.
45.
TatliAVassilopoulouJÖzbilginM (2013) An unrequited affinity between talent shortages and untapped female potential: the relevance of gender quotas for talent management in high growth potential economies of the Asia Pacific region. International Business Review22(3): 539–553.
46.
TerjesenSSealyR (2016) Board gender quotas: exploring ethical tensions from a multi-theoretical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly26(1): 23–65.
47.
TerjesenSAguileraRVLorenzR (2015) Legislating a woman’s seat on the board: institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics128(2): 233–251.
48.
TerjesenSSealyRSinghV (2009) Women directors on corporate boards: a review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review17(3): 320–337.
49.
ZenouEAllemandIBrullebautB (2017) Gender diversity on French boards: example of a success from a hard law. In: SeierstadCGabaldonPMensi-KlarbachH (eds) Gender Diversity in the Boardroom. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 103–124.
