Abstract

Purpose: This paper offers a descriptive assessment of Critical Mass Theory (CMT) application and the relevance of Collective Action Hypothesis (CAH) in board diversity research. The paper distils salient features that may address empirical inconsistencies and potentially unlock alternative methodologies for model constructs to aid future research. This paper aims to add a rational perspective that sharpens the ongoing conversation regarding gender justice, with emphasis on the legitimacy of business context and attainment of contingent-based gender threshold in pursuit of boardroom equality.

Methodology: This paper deploys an explanatory approach in distilling critical mass theory within the context of human and relational capital orientation and what the key features of collective action model represent in board role and task performance.

Findings: The paper accentuates impediments in spurring collective action, and the importance of achieving “spark threshold” with quintessential cognitive, sophisticated women directors for noticeable influence of gender diversity.

Originality and Value: This paper offered an extended CMT (“Board Spark Theory”) for robust empirical testing and the “Club Rule” proposition as substitute for gender quota directives. In addition, the paper makes a case for integration of new models specifically the CMT with existing theoretical frameworks in gender diversity research. The paper outlines how women – as a critical mass variable - should be defined in research model constructs, and the unique features which differentiate directors who are likely to behave differently. Finally, the case put forth for women directorship threshold provides further clarity in deepening research conversations and understanding the dichotomy of business-equality case for board diversity.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.