Ruth Sealy

Research Question/Issue Building on a classic model of socio‐cognitive board processes, we consider the behaviors of men and women directors in boardrooms. We question whether having a critical mass of women on boards, defined as three or more women, removes barriers to women's participation in the boardroom, asking “How does gender influence board processes in boards with three or more women?” Research Findings/Insights Using a comparative case study of three boards through board observation and qualitative interviews, we question the assumption that a critical mass of women delivers effective board processes. We reinterpret the need for women to collaborate supportively as process loss, defined as interaction difficulties preventing groups reaching full potential, revealing potential barriers for women non‐executive directors to contribute across the whole agenda, particularly during critical debates. Theoretical/Academic Implications Critical mass theory ignores important interactions between gender and other job‐related characteristics to underestimate social complexity in the boardroom. Building on an existing typology of diversity, we suggest that gender in the boardroom can operate as status diversity (disparity), as well as information‐based diversity (variety) and value‐based diversity (separation). Practitioner/Policy Implications Chairs and board evaluators who observe board meetings should be vigilant for patterns of participation and collaboration that indicate that women directors are experiencing restricted access to discussion, in particular if women are interrupted. Board leadership decisions should be reviewed regularly to ensure they are supporting board effectiveness, maintaining focus on the task rather than navigating complex social dynamics.