Although the rhetoric of gender equality has been widely accepted, there is no consensus on how to increase gender diversity at top levels in academics, politics or the economic sphere. A paradigm shift seems to occur in how to tackle the problem of the low representation of women in decision-making positions. From focusing on the women themselves in equipping them with the competences, confidence and contacts to participate in the higher echelons of organizations, more and more countries opt to install structural measurements such as quotas to remedy historically grown imbalances. Also in the framework of shaping equal opportunities for men and women in economic decision-making bodies and driven by economic concerns, several European countries have opted for quota systems. Although there is much research investigating the impact of quotas, the implementation of quota legislation and its contestation after its adoption remains underresearched. Therefore, this study focuses on the transition from quasi homogeneous male boards to the inclusion of gender diversity in the boards’ demographic composition. As quota remain a controversial policy instrument, this research draws on 40 interviews with corporate board members of publicly listed companies in Belgium who speak from their own experiences on mechanisms of exclusion, the functioning of corporate boards and the stimulation of gender diversity by quotas. Despite resistance against the introduction of quotas as corporates’ freedom of self-organization becomes restricted, this research contextualizes and analyses the quota discourse and how the interviewees position themselves. In addition, a comparison is made with the public debate on the introduction of electoral quota and which new and recurring arguments and discursive strategies can be distinguished. Interestingly, not gender but ideology in combination with experiences of unconscious biases relate to the strong belief in the necessity of quota regulations to induce change.