Who benefits from board quotas? Intersectional disparities and the moderating role of experience for women directors in India.

Although gender quotas are gaining increasing popularity, evidence on their effectiveness is mixed. While some studies set in Western contexts suggest a positive impact on women's board representation, others demonstrate backlash. Further, because this research primarily treats women as a singular, homogenous group, it overlooks critical intersectionality issues on boards, limiting our understanding of how quotas may shape the outcomes of women directors from marginalized groups. We contribute to this growing scholarly debate on quota effectiveness by examining the outcomes of women directors from both dominant and marginalized groups. Drawing on the instrumental perspective on legitimacy and intersectionality research, we propose that although all women directors gain additional board appointments compared to men when quotas are implemented, marginalized women experience intersectional disadvantages that result in their lower appointment rates compared to dominant women. Importantly, we show that prior executive or independent director experience acts as a powerful equalizer, enabling marginalized women directors to overcome these barriers and close their opportunity gap. We test our hypotheses in the context of India's gender quota policy using archival data on all men and women directors from dominant and marginalized groups (i.e., gender and religion or caste) serving on the boards of the National Stock Exchange (NSE)1500-listed firms from 2013 to 2017 and shed light on the underlying mechanisms using qualitative insights from 37 interviews with directors. Our mixed-methods field data capture real-world board dynamics and maximize ecological validity to provide critical policy implications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).