PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

 

Appointment of women to mining boards - Evidence of tokenism

 

 

NV. Moraka

Unisa, South Africa. ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1490-089X

Correspondence

 

 

---

SYNOPSIS

Mining companies are required by law to improve representation of women on their boards. However, progress in this regard has been slow. Boards of directors play an important role in formulating corporate strategy, risk assessment, and effective governance for sustained financial performance. Although some women have successfully maintained board seats, others have been unable to do so. It is difficult to ascertain whether women are being appointed as tokens to satisfy social pressures, as little is known about the experiences of women board members in mining, which may inform or refute tokenism. In-depth interviews were conducted with 20 women and 16 men across six listed mining companies. Thematic data analysis revealed evidence of tokenism where recruitment to mining boards is compliance-based and is informally driven by influential directors. Adverse boardroom experiences that further confirmed tokenism were reported by women, such as disregarding their contributions, condescending behaviour, and limited influence in decision-making, while other women sought to validate their competence and oppose social exclusion. This study recommends that a strong Board Chair and nominations committee is critical to ensure sustainable recruitment of competent and suitably qualified women; and further foster a culture of inclusivity and valuing gender-diverse boards.

Keywords: women in mining, board of directors, recruitment, chairperson, critical mass, tokenism.

---

 

 

Introduction

On a global scale, only a few women occupy board seats (Bianco, Ciavarella, and Signoretti, 2015; Catalyst, 2021; Chatergee and Nag, 2023; Deloitte, 2019; Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022). To address this problem, initiatives varying from enforced compliance to voluntary targets have been proposed (Botha, 2017), with many companies worldwide stepping to the fore in improving gender diversity (Catalyst, 2021; Szydlo, 2015; Terjesen and Singh, 2008; Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022). Many companies have argued that there is a limited pool of potential women directors, but research refutes these claims and proves that a lack of suitably skilled and qualified women can no longer serve as a defence (Bosch and van der Linde, 2020; Sweetman, 1996; Moraka, 2013; 2018; Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022). In South Africa, it is estimated that women occupy nearly 20% of boards, and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) requires listed companies to indicate commitment and plans to increase the representation of women on boards as part of listing requirements (Bosch and van der Linde, 2020; JSE, 2016).

The South African mining industry presents a unique setting due to its historical male-dominated culture (Benya, 2016). As such, the sector faces various expectations of transforming its gender profile, along with race, at board level and across all occupations and management levels to correct the historical imbalances (Botha, 2017). The principal influencer of equal opportunities in the mining industry is the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (BBBEEA), which through the Mining Charter legislates women's advancement in mining at all levels, including the boardroom, as part of governments empowerment strategy (Deloitte, 2015; Moraka and Jansen van Rensburg, 2015). A study conducted by Women in Mining (WiM) in the UK and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) showed that at a global scale, the mining industry has fewer women on company boards than any other industry (van Dyke, 2020).

In the top 100 global mining companies, women account for only 8% of board seats and just four executive directors in this group (van Dyke, 2020). Although mining companies listed on the JSE have more women directors compared to their international counterparts, the industry still lags with its inability to identify female talent pools, as well as institute development initiatives and retention strategies to attract and sustain women directors (PWC, 2013; van Dyke, 2020). Despite laws enacted, women in mining are reported to still be subjected to social, physiological, and employment barriers (Botha, 2017). These reports should not be expected, particularly because the literature indicates that women on boards makes business sense and provides proven benefits such as higher profit margins, higher return on sales, and higher returns on invested capital and equity (van Dyke, 2020). Women have also been reported to be sensitive to ethics, social and environmental issues, and important drivers for sustainability of organizations (Moraka, 2018). Despite all these benefits, and the promulgation of legislation, the recruitment and retention of women to mining boards is still a challenge (Botha, 2017). The few women appointed are recycled and there is a high turnover due to the inability to retain women directors (Moraka, 2018).

This article contributes to the understanding of recruitment practices and experiences of female directors in mining boardrooms. It contributes to the theoretical knowledge of recruitment to boards to refute or confirm claims of tokenism by presenting the experiences of women who enter mining boardrooms. A theoretical perspective is presented that offers a framework to evaluate evidence of tokenism, which has rarely been empirically tested (Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022). Then, a discussion is presented on the sampling and interview method with emphasis on the research methodology chosen and interview strategies employed. Lastly, a review and discussion of thematic findings is presented before conclusions are drawn.

 

Tokenism theory

Tokenism refers to a practice where members of minority racial, ethnic, or gender groups are permitted to enter spaces and opportunities previously reserved for the majority group to signify inclusivity (Ruby, 2021), when these groups are not genuinely welcome (Riccucci, 2008). Tokenism theory in the context of boards postulates that when only one woman is appointed on the board, scholars are directed to accept as true that the appointment is solely to satisfy social pressure or the perception of inclusion (Broome, 2008; Kanter, 1977; Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022; Rixom, Jackson and Rixom, 2023) or as part of the company's corporate social responsibility (CSR); thus, a board's sincere effort to improve board gender composition becomes questionable (Abdullah, 2014). Other indicators of tokenism were established when women were appointed to boards that had only a few or no female representation or when a woman had recently resigned from that board (Farrell & Hersch, 2005; Gregory-Smith, Main, and O'Reilly, 2013). Minorities (in this case women directors) are easily marginalized when their presence in a larger group is diffident (Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022; Torchia, Calabró, and Huse, 2011). Bhardwaj (2022) found that women's behaviour toward token treatment is determined by their own value systems and aspirations rather than their minority status. However, other studies showed that the mere presence of a single female director may not lead to positive outcomes and contribution (Bear, Rahman, and Post, 2010; Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022), since token appointees may find it more difficult to voice their opinions and be heard (Nemeth, 1986). In an experiment involving 207 Mturk respondents, Rixom, Jackson, and Rixom (2023) found that women are generally viewed as tokens when their numbers are less than the quota according to legislation. Adverse constraints are expected for women joining male-dominated industries owing to their token status (Holgersson and Romani, 2020).

The theory of tokenism (Kanter, 1977) suggests that women minorities are subject to discriminating behaviour during board meetings, and hence face barriers in influencing board decisions. Accordingly, the male board members as the dominant group tends to see women chiefly in terms of the social roles they occupy, embodying the sex role stereotype, and only later as board members (Holgersson and Romani, 2020; Nielsen and Madsen, 2019; Terjesen, Sealy, and Singh, 2009). Gender stereotyping make it difficult for women directors to have their opinions and inputs valued, and importantly, listened to on an equal basis with other board members (Holgersson and Romani, 2020; Ruby, 2021). Elstad and Ladegard (2012) argued that these minority problems should, according to the theory, be alleviated when the ratio of women increases beyond the token limit of 15%. Kanter (1977) studied women working within a male-dominated Fortune 500 firm to explore how the ratio of women in a group affects group processes (Elstad and Ladegard, 2012; Torchia, Calabró, and Huse, 2011). She defined a skewed group as having a ratio of 85:15, where the members of the majority (85% or higher) were labelled 'dominants' and the remaining minority members 'tokens' (Holgersson and Romani, 2020). Tokens are usually perceived negatively, sometimes with downright mockery (Nemeth, 1986), often doubted and not trusted. Being considered a token engenders feelings of discomfort, isolation, and self-doubt (Kanter, 1977), and is likely to affect performance (Nielsen and Madsen, 2019; Powell, 1993; Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022; Rixom, Jackson, and Rixom, 2023). Kanter (1977) established that being a token has three behavioural consequences, namely visibility, polarization, and assimilation.

Visibility implies that the tokens find themselves being watched all the time, resulting in perceptions of performance pressure. In this situation, there are perceptions that even small mistakes can be serious, making tokens feel that they must work harder to receive recognition for any individual achievements (Elstad and Ladegard, 2012; Rixom, Jackson, and Rixom, 2023). The visibility mechanism in tokenism theory predicts that tokens will avoid conflicts and controversies and side with the majority (Li and Wearing, 2004). At the same time, tokens may perceive a pressure not to outperform dominants (Gustafson, 2008), and some will choose to become socially invisible and maintain a low profile (Elstad and Ladegard, 2012), being careful not to argue against the dominants to protect the dominant group's self-esteem. Empirical evidence shows that tokens exhibit passive and obedient behaviour (Li and Wearing 2004), and feel they are likely to be criticized for their mistakes more than necessary (Gustafson, 2008). For all these reasons, even two women appointed to a board will experience difficulties making a meaningful contribution in the boardroom (Torchia, Calabró, and Huse, 2011).

Polarization suggests the contrasting of the dominants (men) with the tokens. It implies that the men feel threatened or uncomfortable around token women, and consequently they heighten their boundaries by exaggerating their commonality and the differences of the tokens (Kanter, 1977; Westphal and Milton, 2000). Demographic differences lower social cohesion in the boards, causing the women to becone isolated from the rest of the group, and thus perceiving that there are barriers to information as well as social isolation (Rixom, Jackson, and Rixom, 2023; van der Walt and Ingley, 2003). In a corporate board setting, the polarization mechanism may have two behavioural consequences. First, the men may be less inclined to share information with the minority women members, and second, they may exclude the tokens from social interaction outside the boardroom (Elstad and Ladegard, 2012). For a corporate board, informal discussion and socializing outside formal meetings are important activities (Parker, 2007; Stevenson and Radin, 2009). Women may find it difficult to fully participate in these social interactions with other board members if they are a minority, because they perceive themselves as an out-group (Huse and Solberg, 2006). Accordingly, the polarization mechanism has the consequence that token women are not aware of or do not participate in informal social interaction outside the boardroom (Elstad and Ladegard, 2012).

Finally, assimilation implies that the tokens are forced into stereotypical categories defined by the dominants (Li and Wearing 2004; Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022; Rixom, Jackson, and Rixom, 2023; Ruby, 2021). Tokens are then not seen as they really are. Kanter (1977) labels this role encapsulation, a method that renders tokens into limited and mimicked roles (for example, anticipations as to what is 'appropriate behaviour' for a woman). For the tokens, stereotyping may result in perceptions of barriers to exerting influence on decisions in the boardroom. These three mechanisms - visibility, polarization, and assimilation - are predictions of how the dominants behave towards tokens, as well as the subjective reactions of the tokens in terms of their own status. Stereotypical prejudices may also have consequences in that the women's inputs are less considered in board decisions (Rahman, Zahid, and Saleh Al-Faryan, 2022; Westphal and Milton, 2000) demonstrating tokenism.

 

Sampling and interview method

Data in this research is valued, as it is difficult to access board members who are often high-profile persons (Kakabadse et al, 2015). Mining companies were selected for the study due to their male-dominated structure and historical gendered architecture. For sampling purposes, Patton (2002) suggests that sample size sufficiency should be bound by peer review and that sampling decisions should give grounds for justification. Non-probability purposive sampling allowed for the selection of a sample that would respond to the objectives of the research, without compromising the scientific and ethical rules for research engagement. At the time of data collection JSE-listed mining companies were leading global mining companies and thus were considered sources of accurate cases to identify outliers for best- and worst-performing companies in terms of women's representation. This research approach followed a qualitative methodology, using a multiple case study design. To achieve a robust, theoretical in-depth understanding, the focus was on six JSE-listed mining companies. Thirty-six Interviews (20 women and 16 men) were held with board members in these companies, ranging from five to six per company. Creswell (2002) suggests that for each case, an average of four respondents should be adequate, while Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) indicate that saturation may occur anywhere between the 6th and 12th interview. Given that on average mining boards consist of eight, members, a minimum of three and maximum of six interviews were conducted for each board. Three companies had more than three women on their boards and the other three had fewer than two, which enabled the study to compare the experiences of respondents across cases. The sample consisted of five Board Chairs (four men and one woman), four CEO's (all men), 14 independent Non-Executive Directors (11 women and 3 men), one Executive Director (woman), and one Financial Director/Chief Financial Officer (woman).

Interviews ranged from 35 minutes to 90 minute each, on average. Interviews were focused on information related to (1) assessing talent management with respect to recruitment of board members (both males and females); and (2) respondents' views regarding challenges and opportunities experienced post recruitment. In-depth interviews were advantageous as they allowed board members to share their encounters by narrating their stories and experiences and thus became active participants in the research (Stanley and Wise, 1983). The in-depth interviews enabled different questions to be asked that placed women's development at the centre of the research (Hesse-Biber, 2007). This strategy ensured that research was undertaken for women rather than about women (Letherby, 2014). Interviews were corroborated with field notes which were prepared for analysis. The transcribed data of the interviews and field notes was subjectively interpreted by a process of thematic analysis, whereby coding was used as a way of indexing or categorizing the text to establish a framework of thematic ideas about it (Gibbs, 2002). The methodology and the research process were transparent and ensured that the findings are clearly presented and open to critical analysis (Hesse-Biber, 2007).

 

Thematic findings

Thematic analysis of the interview transcript data revealed evidence of tokenism, which was corroborated with Kanter's tokenism theory. Six themes emerged to confirm tokenism in mining board recruitment, namely (1) compliance-based recruitment, (2) silence - right to voice diminished, (3) limited influence, (4) condescension, (5) validation seeking, and (6) social exclusion. Table I shows the corroborations of theories, related studies, themes, and supporting quotes.

 

Discussion

Compliance-based recruitment was evident where women were recruited to comply with legislation and boards were compelled to be transparent about measures to increase the membership of women (IoDSA, 2016; JSE, 2016). Scholars believe that when only one woman is appointed on the board, it can be assumed that the appointment was made due to social pressures (Arfken, Bellar, and Helms, 2004; Branson, 2007; Broome, 2008; Burgess and Tharenou, 2002; Holgersson and Romanim, 2020; Kanter, 1977; Kogut, Colomer, and Belinky, 2014; Torchia, Calabró, and Huse, 2011). Respondents in this study believed that mining companies would only act based on enforced compliance. It was therefore determined that quotas play a critical role in addressing the poor representation of women in mining. The respondents, mostly women, disclosed their dislike for quotas due to role categorization, gender stereotypes, and being ignored, signifying polarization, but appreciated the impact of quotas which enabled women appointed to boards to insist on more women being added. The general view was that the mining sector is one industry that needs to be compelled through quotas, otherwise there would not be any improvement. The challenge of compliance-based recruitment happens when a woman is appointed on the board without any board- or mining-related experience, as her apparent contribution will not be realized, confirming tokenism. One woman appointee presented an obvious case of tokensim where she mentioned upfront her lack of any mining-related experience in her interview with the nominations committee, yet she was appointed. It was established that her appointment was a reaction to the recent JSE listing guideline, which stated that listed companies needed to develop gender diversity policies, comply with at least 30% women on boards, or explain why they were not able to meet the target. Tokenism theory suggest that the appointment of one woman in response to legislation can be referred to as tokenism (Arfken, Bellar, and Helms, 2004; Branson, 2007). The deferment to tokenism increases when one woman remains the only female appointee for some time and the commitment to gender diverse board could be doubted (Broome, 2008; Holgersson and Romanim, 2020; Rahman, Zahid, and Al-Faryan, 2021; Rixom, Jackson, and Rixom, 2023).

Although compliance-based recruitment (through quotas) causes women to face negative experiences, such as being labelled as token appointees, results prove that enforced compliance improves representation and further presents opportunities for women. Nativadad (2012) asserted that without compliance, the recruitment of women would be slow. However, token appointments trap women in distortion of roles and generate discomfort for women who are less experienced than men (De Cabo, Gimeno and Nieto, 2012; Holgersson and Romanim, 2020). It was questionable why nomination committees sought to appoint less experienced women, who had no background in mining. Could this be a deliberate strategy to perpetuate the dominance of men who are more experienced and make women a mockery (Ruby, 2021)? Assimilation actions became evident in the results as tokens were forced into limited and mimicked roles with no opportunity to make effective contribution. For the tokens, stereotyping may result in perceptions of barriers to exerting influence on decisions in the boardroom. There is evidence to suggest that women less experienced are appointed so that men can retain their power and dominant status, consistent with literature of the tokenism theory (Penner, Toro-Tulla, and Huffman, 2012; Rahman Zahid, and Al-Faryan, 2022). The consideration from Dahlerup and Freidenvall (2005) that quotas have the potential to compromise the competitive process of finding suitably qualified candidates is demonstrated by this research. What is ignored is the value of previous research, which also submitted that quotas and merit may complement each other (see Sayce and Özbilgin, 2014) precisely if quotas are not the sole purpose for recruitment, which may be counterproductive.

Silence and a right to voice quickly diminished when only one or few women were appointed on boards. Some observations were that women found it challenging to voice their opinions due to their low numbers and their need to assimilate to the male-dominant culture (Broome, 2008; Huse and Solberg, 2006; Lansing and Chandra, 2012). Data shows that patriarchy was the culture that seared through with male dominance, profanity, blasphemous, and obscene language even in the boardroom, which would silence women (also described by Holgersson and Romani, 2020).

Limited influence led women to have little voice on board discussions and decision-making. The literature suggests that women regarded as tokens found it more difficult to influence decisions (Holgersson and Romani, 2020; Maume, 2011). Consistent with the need for visibility and performance pressures, many women felt they had to go an extra mile to prove their contribution, as expectations were higher for women. Women who were not aggressive, but kind and considerate, were considered weak. One woman in the interview reported that despite her 15-year board experience, often her inputs were not considered, where she was dismissed as a quota candidate and made her feel like she was there to tick a box.

Condescension was one other way women were subjected to being undermined, second-guessed, and sometimes disregarded completely. The literature suggests that women's fitness for boards is often challenged, leading to negative evaluations irrespective of their preparation, ability, or performance (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Eagly and Carli, 2007). These challenges hold in this study as women felt they were regarded as incompetent, and were undermined by the dominant groups.

Validation seeking was a cause for concern as the culture rendered women to seek validation from men by doing more than usual to get more recognition. Women, as a result, became frustrated and felt they had to break down barriers slowly and tactfully by working harder than men for their potential to be recognized. Consistent with the tokenism theory, being labelled as tokens made women feel isolated, uncomfortable, with less confidence (Ibarra, 1992; Mathisen, Ogaard, and Marnburg, 2013; Rahman, Zahid, and Al-Faryan, 2022) which was the case with women in the data-set.

Social exclusion of women from professional and social networks solidified and sustained the network of men in the boardroom. Several scholars showed that the dominant groups were likely to exclude the tokens from social interaction outside the boardroom (Elstad and Ladegard, 2012; Glass and Cook, 2016; Gustafson, 2008; Huse and Solberg, 2006; Parker, 2007; Rahman, Zahid, and Al-Faryan, 2022; Stevenson and Radin, 2009). Yet the social identity theory presents another lens, where men have strong bonds even outside the boardroom, for example playing golf. It was difficult to argue whether this exclusion is intentional as some women may not find golf an enthralling sport, and some social functions would naturally exclude women due to other commitments that women have such as home and child care. Yet, women were disadvantaged because of exclusions. Whether intended or not, exclusion from informal networks perpetuated the 'invisible woman syndrome', which means that women remain 'outsiders on the inside, as they are often invisible and not included in social activities outside the boardroom (Moore, 1988).

 

Conclusion

Boards need to recognize that gender diversity is not achieved with one or two women directors (Broome, 2008). The appointment of one or two raises further problems as women minorities are often categorized, stereotyped, and ignored by the majority (Broome, 2008; Huse and Solberg, 2006; Lansing and Chandra, 2012). The adverse experiences include aggression, resistance, and negative evaluations by the dominant group - men. Cook and Glass (2015) reported that women board members considered as tokens will be regarded directors of low rank. The labelling of tokens makes them prone to being nonvalue-adding members who are not able to alter organizational practices and influence decisions for better outcomes (Ashfrod et al, 1998; Maume, 2011; Penner et al, 2012). Tokens who express contentious or nonconforming viewpoints may risk intensifying group variances, increasing bias, and provoking social disapproval from the majority. Consequently, tokens face pressures to conform tand avoid 'rocking the boat' by voicing provocative or innovative ideas (Bradshaw and Wicks, 2000; Kanter, 1977) that may benefit the sustainability of companies.

This article recommends that boards avoid tokenism by appointing competent and suitably qualified women and derive benefit from female representation by having at least three women on a board (Fitzsimmons, 2012) of average size (9 to 12 members in a mining company). The critical mass theory suggests that having three or more women on boards allows them to positively influence decisions and impact on the innovation and sustainability of companies (Erkut, Kramer, and Konrad, 2008; Lansing and Chandra, 2012). The real change occurs when there are three or more women on the board and women feel more comfortable, less constrained about what the men think, and their interactions become more positive and useful for the organization (Erkut, Kramer, and Konrad, 2008) and any suggestions of tokenism are easily refuted.

 

Limitations of the study and future research

By its design, qualitative research has some limitations, stemming from risks of subjectivity, researcher bias, and challenges of time demands for data processing and coding. Commonly, the generalizability of the results, trustworthiness, and quality of findings are usually questioned in qualitative studies. To ensure credibility of the findings, an independent expert individually co-coded the data simultaneously with the researcher, after which the codes and themes were verified by two other experts, one in women's studies and another from strategy and corporate governance. The methodological process can be traced and ensures that quotes are openly presented, and subject to critical analysis (Hesse-Biber, 2007).

Future research may be beneficial in assessing the impact of women on mining boards or boards in general on innovation, financial performance, and sustainability of companies. This is based on the premise of the critical mass theory that three or more women board members reduce token experiences and may positively impact board processes, decisions, and ultimately improve company performance.

 

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express appreciation to the University of South Africa for funding this project. The reviewers are also thanked for their feedback that improved the quality of the paper.

 

CRediT statement

Conceptualization - N.V.; Methodology - N.V; Validation - N.V.; Formal Analysis - N.V.; Investigation - N.V.; Data Curation - N.V.; Writing - Original Draft - N.V.; Writing - Review & Editing -N.V.; Visualization - N.V.; Project Administration - N.V.; Funding Acquisition - UNISA.

 

References

Abdullah, S.N. 2014. The causes of gender diversity in Malaysian large firms. Journal of Management and Governance, vol. 18, no. 4. pp. 1137-1159.         [ Links ]

Arfken, D., Bellar, S., and 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.         [ Links ]

Ashford, S.J., Rothbard, N.P., Piderit, S.K., and Dutton, J.E. 1998. Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 1. pp. 23-57.         [ Links ]

Bear, S., Rahman, N., and Post, C. 2010. The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 99. pp. 207-221.         [ Links ]

Benya, A. 2016. Women in mining: Occupational culture and gendered identities in the making. PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand.         [ Links ]

Bianco, M., Ciavarella, A., and Signoretti, A. 2015. Women on corporate boards in Italy: The role of family connections. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 23, no. 2. pp. 129-144.         [ Links ]

Bhardwaj, S. 2022. Can tokenism drive women director's behaviour on corporate boards? Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2022.15479abstract        [ Links ]

Bosch, A., van der Linde, K., and Barit, S. 2020. Women on South African boards: Facts, fiction and forward thinking. University of Stellenbosch Business School, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Botha, D. 2017. Barriers to career advancement of women in mining: A qualitative analysis. South African Journal of Labour Relations, vol. 41, no. 1. pp. 15-32.         [ Links ]

Bradshaw, P. and Wicks, D. 2000. The experiences of white women on corporate boards in Canada: Compliance and non-compliance to hegemonic masculinity. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Challenges and Opportunities. Burkem R.J. and Mattis, M.C. (eds). Kluwer Academic, London. pp. 97-109.         [ Links ]

Branson, D.M. 2007. No Seat at the Table: How Corporate Governance and Law Keep Women Out of the Boardroom. New York University Press.         [ Links ]

Broome, L.L. 2008. The corporate boardroom: Still a male club. Journal of Corporation Law, vol. 33, no. 3. pp. 665-680.         [ Links ]

Burgess, Z. and Tharenou, P. 2002. Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 37, no. 1. pp. 39-49.         [ Links ]

Catalyst. 2021. Women on Corporate Boards (Quick Take) | Catalyst [accessed 18 May 2023].         [ Links ]

Chatterjee, C. and Nag, T. 2023. Do women on boards enhance firm performance? Evidence from top Indian companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, vol. 20. pp. 155-167.         [ Links ]

Creswell, J. 2002. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.         [ Links ]

Dahlerup, D. and Freidenvall, L. 2005. Quotas as a 'fast track' to equal representation for women. International Feminist. Journal of Politics, vol. 7. no. 1. pp. 26-48.         [ Links ]

Deloitte. 2019. Women in the Boardroom: A Global Perspective (6th edn). Deloitte Global Center for Corporate Governance.         [ Links ]

Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. 2007. Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, vol. 85, no. 9. pp. 62-71.         [ Links ]

Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, vol. 109, no. 3. pp. 573-598.         [ Links ]

Elstad, B. and Ladegard, G. 2012. Women on corporate boards: Key influencers or tokens? Journal of Management Governance, vol. 16, no. 4. pp. 595-615.         [ Links ]

Erkut, S., Kramer, V.W., and Konrad, A.M. 2008. Critical mass: Does the number of women on a corporate board make a difference? Women on Corporate Boards Of Directors: International Research and Practice. Vinnicombe, S., Singh, V., Burke, R.J., Bilimoria, D., and Huse, M. (eds). Edward Elgar, London. pp. 222-232.         [ Links ]

Farrell, K.A. and Hersch, P.L. 2005. Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance, vol. 11. pp. 85-106.         [ Links ]

Fitzsimmons, S.R. 2012. Women on boards of directors: Why skirts in seats aren't enough. Business Horizons, vol. 55. pp. 557-566.         [ Links ]

Gibbs, R. 2002. Analysing Qualitative Data. Sage, London.         [ Links ]

Gregory-Smith, I., Main, B.G.M., and O'Reilly, C.A. 2013. Appointments, pay and performance in UK boardrooms by gender. Economics Journal, vol. 124, no. 574, pp. F109-F128.         [ Links ]

Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L. 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, vol.18, no. 1. pp. 59-82.         [ Links ]

Gustafson, J.L. 2008. Tokenism in policing: An empirical test of Kanter's hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 36, no. 1. pp. 1-10.         [ Links ]

Hesse-Biber, S.N. 2007. Feminist Research Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.         [ Links ]

Holgersson, C. and Romani, L. 2020. Tokenism revisited: When organizational culture challenges masculine norms, the experience of token is transformed. European Management Review, vol. 17. pp. 649- 661.         [ Links ]

Huse, M. and Solberg, A.G. 2006. Gender related boardroom dynamics: How women make and can make contributions on corporate boards. Women in Management Review, vol. 21, no. 12. pp. 113-130.         [ Links ]

Ibarra, H. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 3. pp. 422-447.         [ Links ]

JSE (Johannesburg Stock Exchange). 2016. New JSE requirements for women on boards. https://www.grantthornton.co.za/insights/articles/new-jse-requirements-for-women-on-boards/        [ Links ]

Kakabadse, N.D., Figueira, C., Nicolopoulu, K., Hong Yang, J., Kakabadse, A.P., and Özbilgin, M.F. 2015. Gender diversity and board performance: Women's experiences and perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 54, no. 2. pp. 265-281.         [ Links ]

Kanter, R.M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. Basic Books, New York.         [ Links ]

Kogut, B., Colomer, J., and Belinky, M. 2014. Structural equality at the top of the corporation: Mandated quotas for women directors. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 35, no. 6. pp. 891-902.         [ Links ]

Konrad, A.M., Kramer, V.W., and Erkut, S. 2008. The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, vol. 37, no. 2. pp. 145-164.         [ Links ]

Lansing, P. and Chandra, S. 2012. Quota systems as a means to promote women into corporate boards. Employee Relations Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 3. pp. 3-14.         [ Links ]

Letherby, G. 2014. Feminist auto/biography. Handbook on Feminist Theory. Evans, M., Hemmings, C., Henry, M., Johnstone, H., Madhok, S., Plomien, A. and Wearing, S. (eds). Sage, London. pp. 128-144.         [ Links ]

Li, A.C. and Wearing, B. 2004. Between glass ceiling: Female non-executive directors in UK quoted companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, vol. 1, no. 4. pp. 355-371.         [ Links ]

Mathisen, G.E., Ogaard, T., and Marnburg, E. 2013. Women in the boardroom: How do female directors of corporate boards perceive boardroom dynamics? Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 116, no. 1. pp. 87-97.         [ Links ]

Maume, D.J. 2011. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? Female supervisors and subordinate career prospects. Social Science Research, vol. 40, no. 1. pp. 287-298.         [ Links ]

Moraka, N.V. 2013. Board transformation and EE scorecard target attainment: Progress made and barriers faced with transformation by JSE listed companies in the South African mining industry. Master's dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

Moraka, NV. 2018. An African feminist study of talent management practices applied to improve gender equality in JSE-listed South African mining boards: A multiple case analysis. Doctoral thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

Moraka, N.V. and Jansen van Rensburg, M. 2015. Transformation in the South African mining industry: Looking beyond the employment equity scorecard. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 115, no. 8. pp. 669-678.         [ Links ]

Nielsen, V.L. and Madsen, M.B. 2019. Token status and management aspirations among male and female employees in public sector workplaces. Public Personnel Management, vol. 48, no. 2. pp. 226-251.         [ Links ]

Nemeth, C.J. 1986. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, vol. 93, no. 1. pp. 23-32.         [ Links ]

Parker, L.D. 2007. Boardroom strategizing in professional associations: Processual and institutional perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 44, no. 8. pp. 1454-1480.         [ Links ]

Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.         [ Links ]

Penner, A.M., Toro-Tulla, H.J., and Huffman, M.L. 2012. Do women managers ameliorate gender differences in wages? Evidence from a large grocery retailer. Sociological Perspectives, vol. 55, no. 2. pp. 365-381.         [ Links ]

Powell, G.N. 1993. Women and Men in Management. 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.         [ Links ]

PwC. 2013. PwC and Women in Mining UK. Mining for talent: A study of women on boards in the mining industry by WIM (UK) and PwC. January 2013. https://www.pwc.com/gr/en/publications/assets/mining-for-talent.pdf        [ Links ]

Rahman, H.U. Zahid, M., and Al-Faryan. 2022. Boardroom gender diversity and firm performance: From the lens of voluntary regulations, 'tokenism' and 'critical mass'. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 34, no. 3. pp. 345-363.         [ Links ]

Riccucci, N.M. 2008. Tokenism. Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. Moore, J.H. (ed.). MacMillan Reference, Detroit, MI. pp. 132-134.         [ Links ]

Rixom, J.M., Jackson, M., and Rixom, B.A. 2023. Mandating diversity on the board of directors: Do investors feel that gender quotas result in tokenism or added value for firms? Journal of Business Ethics. vol. 182. pp. 679-697.         [ Links ]

Ruby, M. 2021. Tokenism. Encyclopaedia of Critical Whiteness Studies in Education. Casey, Z.A. (ed.). Vol. 2. Brill Sense, Leiden. pp. 675-80.         [ Links ]

Sayce, S. and Özbilgin, M.F. 2014. Pension trusteeship and diversity in the UK: A new boardroom recipe for change or continuity?. Economic and Industrial Democracy, vol. 35, no. 1. pp. 49-69.         [ Links ]

Stevenson, W.B. and Radin, R.F. 2009. Social capital and social influence on the board of directors. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 46, no. 1. pp. 16-44.         [ Links ]

Sweetman, K.J. 1996. Women in boardrooms: Increasing numbers qualify to serve. Harvard Business Review, vol. 74, no. 1. p. 13.         [ Links ]

Szydło, M. 2015. Gender equality on the boards of EU companies: Between economic efficiency, fundamental rights and democratic legitimisation of economic governance. European Law Journal, vol. 21, no. 1. pp. 97-115.         [ Links ]

Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., and Singh, V 2009. Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 320-337.         [ Links ]

Terjesen, S. and Singh, V. 2008. Female presence on corporate boards: A multi-country study of environmental context. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 83, no. 1. pp. 55-63.         [ Links ]

Torchia, M., Calabró, A., and Huse, M. 2011. Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 102. pp. 299-317.         [ Links ]

Van der Walt, N. and Ingley, C. 2003. Board dynamics and the influence of professional background, gender, and ethnic diversity of directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 11, no. 3. pp. 218-234.         [ Links ]

Van Dyk, A. 2020. Mining companies need more women in the boardroom. Mining Digital. https://miningdigital.com/supply-chain-and-operations/study-mining-companies-need-more-women-board-room [accessed 17 September 2023].         [ Links ]

Westphal, J.D. and Milton, L.P. 2000. How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 2. pp. 366-398.         [ Links ]

 

 

Correspondence:
N.V. Moraka
Email: moraknv@unisa.ac.za

Received: 12- Jun. 2023
Revised: 14 Sep. 2023
Accepted: 6 Oct. 2023
Published: December 2023