Subtle Influence: What Women Directors Told Us About Adapting Their Approach.

Boards across Asia Pacific vary widely in how they treat hierarchy and dissent. Most nations in the region are high in power distance and collectivism, with Australia and New Zealand the notable exceptions (Hofstede, 2011). In these settings, deference to the chair can limit who speaks, and gender can add a second layer of expectation (Steel, 2026).

We interviewed 66 non-executive directors across Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Oceania. Three themes bear directly on women (Steel, 2026).

1. A systems approach to influence. Across nationalities, female interviewees often described reading the interpersonal and situational conditions first, then choosing a path to influence. This is a practical skill. It matches the cultural intelligence behaviour in Bourke and Espedido’s (2019) inclusive leadership model: attend to others’ cultures and adapt as required.

2. Conflicting advice on vulnerability. Inclusive leaders are expected to show humility and admit uncertainty (Bourke & Espedido, 2019). Yet many interviewees said they had received and given contradictory advice on when it is wise to show uncertainty. The advice shifted with cultural expectations of authority and with gender roles. The same behaviour that builds trust in one setting may be read as weakness in another.

3. A seat without a voice. An Australian director said it plainly: “you can have a seat at the table, but not a voice.” Directors in Australia and Singapore from minority gender, racial, caste or religious backgrounds expressed frustration at underrepresentation. Some described equity initiatives as “fluffy” and preferred data-driven approaches to structural inequality.

What the evidence suggests. Representation alone does not secure influence. Participation depends on the chair. Directors across cultures said respected chairs draw out quieter members and set the tone for open challenge. Pre-meeting conversations were also a common route to influence, particularly in high power distance cultures.

Implication for SMEs. Review who speaks in your leadership meetings, not only who attends. Give every leader a route to contribute, including private input before decisions. Measure outcomes such as promotion, pay and participation, so inclusion is judged on data rather than intent. These steps also reduce talent risk.

Limits. This is an exploratory study of volunteers. The chapter does not report results by gender, and the observations above are qualitative themes from interviews, not measured differences between women and men. The sample may also lean toward directors open to inclusive leadership research (Steel, 2026). Treat these findings as prompts for further research.

References
Bourke, J. & Espedido, A. (2019). Why inclusive leaders are good for organizations, and how to become one. Harvard Business Review, 29 March.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Steel, A. (2026). Inclusion as strategic advantage. In The Handbook of Inclusive Leadership (Ch. 12). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111662145-013