On World Day of Social Justice, I found myself reflecting on a question that has shaped my entire board career: how many women does it take to change the conversation in the boardroom?

I’ve been the only woman in the boardroom. I’ve been one of two. I’ve been one of three or more. The difference is profound.

Over my 25+ years in the boardroom, I’ve seen this pattern again and again. It led me to develop the “Power of Three” philosophy: one woman in a boardroom is a token; two are a presence; three are a voice.

When you’re the only woman at the table, you’re often isolated, pressured to represent “the woman’s perspective,” and expected to conform. Your expertise is filtered through your gender.

With two women, there’s less isolation, but you’re still a minority voice. The dynamics remain largely unchanged.

When there are three women, something shifts. Diversity becomes normalized. Women stop being “women” and start contributing their individual expertise. The dialogue transforms.

Boardroom composition determines who holds the power to shape corporate strategy, capital allocation, executive compensation, and ESG commitments. When women’s voices are structurally marginalized through tokenism, social justice goals remain aspirations on paper rather than measurable outcomes.

I encourage nominating committees to set explicit targets: a minimum of three women (or 30%, whichever is higher). Succession planning should deliberately work toward that threshold and extend beyond a single board appointment.

If your board has one woman, you have a token. Add two more. If your board has two women, you’re halfway there. Don’t stop now. If your board has three or more women, you’re positioned for the kind of dialogue that elevates governance.

The United Nations‘ 2026 theme for World Day of Social Justice calls for a “renewed commitment to social development and social justice,” thereby strengthening the social contract. In the boardroom, that means moving beyond symbolic representation to genuine power-sharing.