newsweek:

Dahlia Lithwick says yes.

Social scientists contend that the difference is more than just cosmetic. They cite a 2006 study by the Wellesley Centers for Women that found three to be the magic number when it came to the impact of women on corporate boards: after the third woman is seated, boards reach a tipping point at which the group as a whole begins to function differently. According to Sumru Erkut, one of the authors of that study, the small group as a whole becomes more collaborative, and more open to different perspectives. In no small part, she writes, that’s because once a critical mass of three women is achieved on a board, it’s more likely that all the women will be heard.

Rock on, smart ladies at the WCW.

(this post was reblogged from newsweek)

Notes

  1. asdjaf reblogged this from newsweek
  2. rarrmi reblogged this from newsweek
  3. stephanieoh reblogged this from newsweek
  4. thesociologist reblogged this from winifredjay
  5. tiffehr reblogged this from newsweek and added:
    Rock on, smart ladies at the WCW.
  6. onascaleofonetoawesome reblogged this from newsweek
  7. theboydsmith reblogged this from newsweek
  8. anokarina reblogged this from newsweek and added:
    Depressing. It takes one man to be heard, but three for *maybe* a women to be heard.
  9. ligaturesignature reblogged this from newsweek
  10. arithmachic reblogged this from newsweek
  11. everydayisablur reblogged this from newsweek and added:
    Feminism + economics. Beautiful.
  12. winifredjay reblogged this from newsweek
  13. metricdisco reblogged this from newsweek and added:
    Interesting… But do you think they could have found less attractive pictures of them? I mean really?
  14. chelsealyn reblogged this from newsweek
  15. guavaberry reblogged this from equalitymyth