This is an extension of the California law to require companies to have women on boards that happened in 2018 which already potentially doubles some board sizes, though I'm not sure how its played out so far.<p>Anything that forcibly makes boards larger is <i>probably</i> bad for companies, regardless of the goodness of intentions. If you do not believe requirements like Goldman's will increase board sizes, then you must believe that all companies are willing to fire some number of current board members to meet quota, which seems unlikely.<p>Peter Thiel in Zero to One:<p>> A board of three is ideal. Your board should never exceed five people, unless your company is publicly held. (Government regulations effectively mandate that public companies have larger boards—the average is nine members.) By far the worst you can do is to make your board extra large. When unsavvy observers see a nonprofit organization with dozens of people on its board, they think: “Look how many great people are committed to this organization! It must be extremely well run.” Actually, a huge board will exercise no effective oversight at all; it merely provides cover for whatever microdictator actually runs the organization. If you want that kind of free rein from your board, blow it up to giant size. If you want an effective board, keep it small.<p>More board members may increase intransigence, decrease oversight (cover over who is <i>really</i> making the decisions and who is not), and turn corps more bureaucratic. <i>Regardless</i> of who is joining the board, this is going to increase board sizes, and that's pretty unfortunate for some philosophies of effective management.<p>It is not that [xyz] representation isn't a problem, but that an effective company structure must be the foremost requirement, ahead of any other (more arbitrary or ephemeral) requirements. Or else there won't be as many great companies to steward in the first place.