This product has already been purchased.
- New research finds board diversity is not stalling because directors oppose it, but because diversity is often filtered through existing ideas of experience, credibility and risk.
- While boards value diversity, whether different perspectives shape decisions depends heavily on boardroom dynamics and leadership.
- The study suggests boards should focus not only on representation, but also on how decision-making processes determine whose contributions are valued.
New research from the University of Adelaide and University of Virginia suggests that progress on board diversity is stalling, not due to resistance, but rather how diversity is defined and applied in boardroom decision making.
Board diversity has been on the governance agenda for more than a decade with targets, disclosure regimes and investor scrutiny shifting expectations and attitudes. Yet, progress remains uneven.
While gender representation has improved, many boards continue to look remarkably similar in background, experience and perspective.
So why does board homogeneity persist – even when directors and other key stakeholders genuinely value diversity?
New research suggests the answer lies not in resistance or lack of goodwill, but in how diversity is understood, justified and enacted in boardroom practice.
Drawing on interviews with 34 Australian non-executive directors across Australian boards, the study – carried out by Dr Tracey Dodd GAICD and Dr Lauren Wang Kaufmann – found that diversity does not fail because directors oppose it, it stalls because of the way boards decide what “counts” as legitimate contribution.
Four key findings from the study
1. Diversity enters the boardroom as an expectation, not a decision rule
Directors that took part in the study consistently described diversity as an important expectation – driven by regulators, investors, stakeholders and broader community norms.
“No board wants to be seen as lacking a ‘diverse mindset’,” said Dodd and Kaufmann.
However, they explained, diversity often enters board discussions as a value in principle, rather than as a concrete criterion guiding appointments or deliberation. In other words, boards agree diversity matters – but what it means in practice remains open to interpretation.
2. Diversity is filtered through familiar ideas of competence and risk
When boards move from principle to decision – particularly in recruitment and succession – diversity is translated into more familiar governance language: skills, experience, board readiness, credibility and risk.
“This translation matters,” said Dodd and Kaufmann. “Directors frequently privileged prior board experience, sector familiarity and trusted networks. Diversity is welcomed when it can be aligned with these criteria – and becomes fragile when it cannot”.
This, they added, helps explain why some forms of diversity progress faster than others.
3. Whether diversity shapes decisions depends heavily on boardroom dynamics
Having diverse directors around the table does not always guarantee diverse perspectives will shape outcomes, the research showed.
The 34 NEDs surveyed repeatedly highlighted the role of the chair in setting tone, managing airtime and drawing out quieter voices around the board table.
Chairs who speak last actively invite alternative views and create space for different perspectives to shape deliberation. Conversely, those who speak early or strongly can unintentionally close down space for collaboration.
“This turns diversity from representation into a strategic advantage; it is the difference between a board that looks different and one that actually thinks differently,” said Dodd and Kaufmann.
As a result, for directors in minority positions, contributing diverse perspectives often requires careful judgement – choosing the right moment, framing views strategically and building support. Diversity, in practice, is negotiated through timing, trust and interaction, not simply presence.
4. Board outcomes reinforce existing norms – even when diversity is valued
Perhaps the most important finding is that board decisions that “work” become evidence for how future decisions should be made.
“When boards appoint people who fit existing ideas of credibility and experience – even when those individuals add diversity – those choices reinforce current definitions of what a ‘good director’ looks like,” said Dodd and Kaufmann.
Over time, they explained, this creates a self‑reinforcing cycle where diversity is selectively included, while broader homogeneity in discussions, deliberation and cultivation of ideas around the board room remains intact.
“This limits the capacity for diverse directors’ presence to be leveraged into real decision-making improvements,” the researchers cautioned. “Crucially, this happens without directors intending exclusion.”
Why the research matters for directors
“Our research reframes board diversity as a governance process, not a numbers problem,” explained Dodd and Kaufmann.
They said homogeneity persists not because directors resist diversity, but because boards rely on deeply embedded ways of judging worth – competence, trust, risk and legitimacy – that tend to favour familiar profiles in terms of the perspectives valued in strategic decision making.
“If boards want diversity to genuinely strengthen decision making, they must look beyond targets and pipelines to examine how boardrooms function.”
Implications for board practice
1. Interrogate how “board readiness” is defined
Ask whether current criteria for experience and credibility unintentionally narrow the pool. Could adjacent experience, different sectors or alternative career paths add governance value?
2. Pay attention to chair behaviour and meeting dynamics
Inclusion is not automatic. Chairs play a pivotal role in ensuring diverse perspectives are heard, particularly from quieter or minority voices.
3. Treat diversity as a deliberative asset, not just a compositional one
The value of diversity lies in surfacing different questions, risks and assumptions – not simply in representation.
4. Examine recruitment processes for shortcuts
Network-based recruitment and reliance on prior board experience can de-risk appointments in appearance, but limit the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences that drive strategic advantage. Ensure an open, transparent and merit-based recruitment process.
Four levers for change
1. Redefine board readiness – include adjacent experience and lived insight
2. Strengthen practice – inclusion is an active governance skill
3. Interrogate recruitment shortcuts – familiarity often masquerades as risk management
4. Evaluate interaction, not just composition – voice matters more than numbers
Latest news
Already a member?
Login to view this content