Women Directors on Corporate Boards: Who Wins and Why Experience Matters

The push for gender quotas in corporate boards is growing worldwide, yet the real impact of these rules remains unclear. In many Western studies, quotas appear to help women gain seats, but other research shows that the added pressure can backfire. Moreover, most studies treat women as a single group and ignore differences that arise when gender intersects with other identities such as religion or caste. This limits our grasp of how quotas affect women from marginalized backgrounds. Our research tackles this gap by looking at two kinds of female directors: those from dominant social groups and those from marginalized ones. Using a theoretical lens that sees board positions as tools for legitimacy, we argue that while quotas generally increase the number of women on boards compared to men, the rise is smaller for marginalized women. They face extra obstacles that keep their appointment rates lower than those of dominant women.A key finding is the role of prior experience. Directors who have held executive or independent roles before can use those credentials to level the playing field. Experience becomes a powerful equalizer, helping marginalized women overcome institutional barriers and narrow their opportunity gap. We tested these ideas in India, where a gender quota policy was introduced for companies listed on the National Stock Exchange. Our data set covers all directors—both men and women—from 2013 to 2017, including information on gender, religion, and caste. To understand the mechanisms behind the numbers, we also conducted 37 in‑depth interviews with board members. The mixed‑methods approach gives a realistic picture of how boards function in practice. By combining hard data with personal stories, we uncover the subtle ways quotas influence board composition and highlight what policymakers should consider when designing effective gender‑balance rules.