On the workers-on-boards topic I mentioned this quote from Zero to One, which applies here too:
"A board of three is ideal. Your board should never exceed five people, unless your company is publicly held. (Government regulations effectively mandate that public companies have larger boards—the average is nine members.) By far the worst you can do is to make your board extra large. When unsavvy observers see a nonprofit organization with dozens of people on its board, they think: “Look how many great people are committed to this organization! It must be extremely well run.” Actually, a huge board will exercise no effective oversight at all; it merely provides cover for whatever microdictator actually runs the organization. If you want that kind of free rein from your board, blow it up to giant size. If you want an effective board, keep it small."
— Peter Thiel
More board members may increase intransigence, decrease oversight (cover over who is really making the decisions and who is not), and turn US corps more bureaucratic. Never-mind who is joining the board, this is going to increase board sizes, and that's pretty unfortunate for some philosophies of effective management.
If you do not believe this will increase board sizes, then you must believe that all companies are willing to fire some number of current board members to meet their quotas, which seems terribly unlikely to me.
If currently all-male (48% percent of companies have no women on their boards), requiring at least 3 on boards of 6, unless you fire half your current board, is exploding the board size by 50%. Requiring at least 2 on boards of 5, unless you fire ~half your current board, brings the number up to 7. But then you need 3 (its over 6), so you have to add one more, so a board of 5 gets a 60% increase in size to 8 people.
If you want businesses to be successful, you probably shouldn't expand their boards against their will. It is not that female representation isn't a problem, it is that an effective company structure must be foremost, ahead of any other (more arbitrary or ephemeral) requirements. Or else there won't be as many great companies to steward in the first place.
"A board of three is ideal. Your board should never exceed five people, unless your company is publicly held. (Government regulations effectively mandate that public companies have larger boards—the average is nine members.) By far the worst you can do is to make your board extra large. When unsavvy observers see a nonprofit organization with dozens of people on its board, they think: “Look how many great people are committed to this organization! It must be extremely well run.” Actually, a huge board will exercise no effective oversight at all; it merely provides cover for whatever microdictator actually runs the organization. If you want that kind of free rein from your board, blow it up to giant size. If you want an effective board, keep it small." — Peter Thiel
More board members may increase intransigence, decrease oversight (cover over who is really making the decisions and who is not), and turn US corps more bureaucratic. Never-mind who is joining the board, this is going to increase board sizes, and that's pretty unfortunate for some philosophies of effective management.
If you do not believe this will increase board sizes, then you must believe that all companies are willing to fire some number of current board members to meet their quotas, which seems terribly unlikely to me.
If currently all-male (48% percent of companies have no women on their boards), requiring at least 3 on boards of 6, unless you fire half your current board, is exploding the board size by 50%. Requiring at least 2 on boards of 5, unless you fire ~half your current board, brings the number up to 7. But then you need 3 (its over 6), so you have to add one more, so a board of 5 gets a 60% increase in size to 8 people.
If you want businesses to be successful, you probably shouldn't expand their boards against their will. It is not that female representation isn't a problem, it is that an effective company structure must be foremost, ahead of any other (more arbitrary or ephemeral) requirements. Or else there won't be as many great companies to steward in the first place.