Abstract
Although we can observe noticeable progress in gender diversity on corporate boards, these boards remain far from gender balanced. Our paper builds on social identity theory to examine the impact of corporate elites—men and women who sit on multiple corporate boards—on board diversity. We extend the main argument of social identity theory concerning favouritism based on homophily by suggesting that boards with men with multiple appointments are unwilling to include female board members to protect the monopoly value generated by their elite status. The empirical analysis, based on DAX 30 firms in the period of 2010–2015, shows that the presence of multi-board men is negatively associated with women’s participation, while the presence of multi-board women and other women on management boards is positively related to gender diversity on boards. Furthermore, robustness tests support and confirm our conclusion that multi-board men have a significant association with board diversity, even with small size (i.e. 1 or 2). Additionally, we find a significant effect arising from pressure related to the introduction of gender quotas in Germany, effective in 2016, indicating the effectiveness of gender quota policies for board gender diversity.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) is the world’s leading provider of corporate governance and responsible investment solutions.
Bonacich power (beta centrality) centrality, another centrality measure in social network analysis, is also used for robustness checks (Bonacich 1987).
The reason why we have only 170 observations is the following: ROA data are missing for Commerzbank AG in 2010 and 2013, for Deutsche Bank AG in 2015 and for Fresenius Medical Care AG and Co KGaA in 2013 (altogether 4 missing observations). Further, foreign sales data are missing for Linde AG for all the sample years (altogether 6 missing observations). In total, 10 observations out of 180 are missing.
References
Abdullah, S. N., Ismail, K., N. I. K, & Nachum, L. (2016). Does having women on boards create value? The impact of societal perceptions and corporate governance in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 466–476.
Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 291–309.
Anderson, R. C., Reeb, D. M., Upadhyay, A., & Zhao, W. (2011). The economics of director heterogeneity. Financial Management, 40, 5–38.
Barbulescu, R., & Bidwell, M. (2013). Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers. Organization Science, 24, 737–756.
Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 207–221.
Bilimoria, D., & Piderit, S. K. (1994). Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1453–1477.
Boivie, S., Lange, D., McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2011). Me or we: The effects of CEO organizational identification on agency costs. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 551–576.
Bongiorno, R., Bain, P. G., & David, B. (2014). If you’re going to be a leader, at least act like it! Prejudice towards women who are tentative in leader roles. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 217–234.
Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
Brewer, M. B. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 480–491). New York: Guilford Press.
Bugeja, M., Matolcsy, Z., & Spiropoulos, H. (2016). The association between gender-diverse compensation committees and CEO compensation. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 375–390.
Burke, R. (2000). Company size, board size, and the numbers of women corporate directors. In R. Burke & M. Mathis (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: International challenges and opportunities (pp. 118–125). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Carrasco, A., Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Laffarga, J., & Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. (2015). Appointing women to boards: Is there a cultural bias? Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 429–444.
Carter, D. A., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2010). The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18, 396–414.
Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2004). Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 193–208.
Chattopadhyay, P., Tluchowska, M., & George, E. (2004). Identifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of Management Review, 29, 180–202.
Cumming, D., Leung, T. Y., & Rui, O. (2015). Gender diversity and securities fraud. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1572–1593.
Dargnies, M. P. (2012). Men too sometimes shy away from competition: The case of team competition. Management Science, 58, 1982–2000.
Davis, G. F. (1993). Who gets ahead in the market for corporate directors: The political economy of multiple board memberships. In Academy of management best paper proceedings (pp. 202–206).
Davis, G. F., Yoo, M., & Baker, W. E. (2003). The small world of the American corporate elite, 1982–2001. Strategic Organization, 1, 301–326.
Dennis, M. R., & Kunkel, A. D. (2004). Perceptions of men, women, and CEOs: The effects of gender identity. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(2), 155–172.
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2016). The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 456–469.
Dezsö, C. L., & Ross, D. G. (2012). Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1072–1089.
Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2013). From bench to board: Gender differences in university scientists’ participation in corporate scientific advisory boards. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1443–1464.
Domhoff, G. W. (2002). Who rules America? Power and politics (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
European Commission. (2018, January 3). Gender balance in decision-making positions. Retrieved January 3, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-decision-making/index_en.htm.
Farrell, K. A., & Hersch, P. L. (2005). Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate finance, 11, 85–106.
French, E. (2001). Approaches to equity management and their relationship to women in management. British Journal of Management, 13, 267–285.
Gedajlovic, E. R., & Shapiro, D. M. (1998). Management and ownership effects: Evidence from five countries. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 533–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199806)19:6<533::AID-SMJ957>3.0.CO;2-%23.
Geletkanycz, M. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). The external ties of top executives: Implications for strategic choice and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 654–681.
Greguletz, E., Diehl, M.-R., & Kreutzer, K. (2018). Why women build less effective networks than men: The role of structural exclusion and personal hesitation. Human Relations, 56(6): 635–662.
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 199–267). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32, 334–343.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
Helfat, C. E., Harris, D., & Wolfson, P. J. (2007). The pipeline to the top: Women and men in the top executive ranks of US corporations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 42–64.
Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 941–952.
Holst, E., & Kirsch, A. (2016). Corporate boards of large companies: More momentum needed for gender parity. DIW Economic Bulletin, 3, 13–25.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 56–87.
Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Vetter, K. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass?”. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 61–72.
Joshi, A., Liao, H., & Roh, H. (2011). Bridging domains in workplace demography research: A review and reconceptualization. Journal of Management, 37, 521–552.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kogut, B., Colomer, J., & Belinky, M. (2014). Structural equality at the top of the corporation: Mandated quotas for women directors. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 891–902.
Lanis, R., Richardson, G., & Taylor, G. (2017). Board of director gender and corporate tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 144, 577–596.
Lee, P. M., & James, E. H. (2007). She’-E-Os: gender effects and investor reactions to the announcements of top executive appointments. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 227–241.
Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443–453.
Lubomir, P. L., Moreton, P., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Corporate strategy, analyst coverage, and the uniqueness paradox. Management Science, 58, 1797–1815.
Maner, J. K., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Altruism and egoism: Prosocial motivations for helping depend on relationship context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 347–358.
Martin, J. (1981). Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive injustice for an era of shrinking resources. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 53–107.
McDonald, M. L., & Westphal, J. D. (2013). Access denied: Low mentoring of women and minority first-time directors and its negative effects on appointments to additional boards. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1169–1198.
Mizruchi, M. S. (2004). Berle and Means revisited: The governance and power of large U.S. corporations. Theory and Society, 33, 579–617.
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2004). On the importance of cognitive evaluation as a determinant of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 696–712.
O’Neal, D., & Thomas, H. (1996). Developing the strategic board. Long Range Planning, 29, 314–327.
Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 321–334.
Palmer, D., & Barber, B. M. (2001). Challengers, elites, and owning families: A social class theory of corporate acquisitions in the 1960s. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 87–120.
Post, C., & Byron, K. (2015). Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1546–1571.
Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28(2), 177–193.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2000). Limiting inequality through interaction: The end(s) of gender. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 110–120.
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at the psychological barriers of women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
Sealy, R., Doldor, E., & Vinnicombe, S. (2016). Cranfield Female FTSE Board Report 2016. Cranfield University. https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/press/news-2016/women-on-boards-ftse-100-company-has-full-gender-balance-for-first-time. Accessed 16.2.2018.
Simon, B., Stürmer, S., & Steffens, K. (2000). Helping individuals or group members? The role of individual and collective identification in AIDS volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 497–506.
Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. (1974). The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7, 55–60.
Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207–218.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33, 94–109.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relation (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Terjesen, S., & Sealy, R. (2016). Board gender quotas: Exploring ethical tensions from a multi-theoretical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26, 23–65.
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 320–337.
Terry, D., & Callan, V. (1998). In-group bias in response to organizational merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 67–81.
Tochia, M., Calabro, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 299–317.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tuschke, A., & Sanders, G. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of corporate governance reform: The case of Germany. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 631–649.
Useem, M. (1984). The inner circle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verkuyten, M., Drabbles, M., & van den Nieuwenhuijzen, K. (1999). Self-categorization and emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 605–620.
Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. (2007). Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a male Caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic minority status affect additional board appointments at U.S. companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 267–288.
Wharton, A., & Baron, J. (1987). So happy together? The impact of gender segregation on men at work. American Sociological Review, 52: 574–587.
Zweigenhaft, R. L., & Domhoff, G. W. (2006). Diversity in the power elite: How it happened, why it matters. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Associate Editor Alexander Newman for his guidance throughout the review process as well as to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments. We also wish to acknowledge the feedback we received on earlier versions of this work from the members of the EBS Business School’s writing workshop.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A1: Summary Statistics for 160 German Firms in 2017
Variable | Mean | Median | SD | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Board diversity (Blau) | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 0.50 |
No. of multi-board men | 1.17 | 1.00 | 1.46 | 0.00 | 6.00 |
No. of multi-board women | 0.37 | 0.00 | 0.67 | 0.00 | 3.00 |
Men’s average degree | 12.57 | 11.00 | 7.45 | 2.00 | 33.14 |
Firm size | 36.52 | 7.44 | 83.99 | 0.00 | 626.72 |
EBIT | 986.43 | 186.19 | 2292.90 | − 4893.00 | 12893.00 |
ROA | 5.31 | 5.32 | 5.59 | − 14.78 | 25.38 |
Foreign sales to total sales | 57.57 | 56.32 | 96.75 | 0.00 | 1159.01 |
Board size | 10.87 | 12.00 | 5.22 | 3.00 | 21.00 |
Appendix A2: Regression Results of the 160 Largest German Firms in 2017
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
No. of multi-board men | − 0.353** (0.144) | − 0.326** (0.143) | − 0.335** (0.141) | |
No. of multi-board women | 0.162* (0.086) | 0.176** (0.085) | ||
Top 100 (0/1) | 0.383** (0.165) | |||
Men’s average degree | 0.322** (0.154) | 0.679*** (0.210) | 0.610*** (0.211) | 0.614*** (0.208) |
Firm size | − 0.005 (0.099) | 0.000 (0.097) | 0.040 (0.098) | − 0.010 (0.099) |
EBIT | − 0.026 (0.094) | 0.048 (0.097) | − 0.010 (0.101) | − 0.034 (0.100) |
ROA | 0.034 (0.079) | 0.008 (0.079) | 0.021 (0.078) | 0.023 (0.077) |
Foreign sales to total sales | 0.129* (0.077) | 0.133* (0.075) | 0.129* (0.075) | 0.110 (0.074) |
Board size | 0.186 (0.152) | 0.061 (0.158) | 0.039 (0.157) | 0.011 (0.155) |
Constant | − 0.004 (0.075) | 0.000 (0.073) | − 0.003 (0.073) | − 0.240* (0.125) |
Observations | 146a | 146 | 146 | 146 |
R 2 | 0.234 | 0.266 | 0.285 | 0.312 |
Appendix A3: Dummies for the Number of Multi-board Men (160 Firms in 2017)
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dum0 | − 0.324* (0.192) | ||||
Dum1 | − 0.405 (0.291) | ||||
Dum2 | − 0.405 (0.291) | ||||
Dum3 | − 0.405 (0.291) | ||||
Dum4 | − 0.239 (0.315) | ||||
Dum5 | |||||
No. of multi-board women | 0.007 (0.103) | 0.021 (0.102) | 0.021 (0.102) | 0.021 (0.102) | 0.020 (0.103) |
Men’s average degree | 0.427** (0.178) | 0.456** (0.203) | 0.456** (0.203) | 0.456** (0.203) | 0.322* (0.169) |
Constant | 0.177 (0.131) | 0.110 (0.111) | 0.110 (0.111) | 0.110 (0.111) | 0.030 (0.087) |
Observations | 146 | 146 | 146 | 146 | 146 |
R 2 | 0.309 | 0.305 | 0.305 | 0.305 | 0.298 |
Appendix A4: The List of DAX30 Companies
No. | Company name |
---|---|
1 | Adidas AG |
2 | Allianz SE |
3 | BASF SE |
4 | Bayer AG |
5 | Bayerische Motoren Werke AG |
6 | Beiersdorf AG |
7 | Commerzbank AG |
8 | Continental AG |
9 | Daimler AG |
10 | Deutsche Bank AG |
11 | Deutsche Boerse AG |
12 | Deutsche Lufthansa AG |
13 | Deutsche Post AG |
14 | Deutsche Telekom AG |
15 | E.ON SE |
16 | Fresenius Medical Care AG and Co KGaA |
17 | Fresenius SE and Co KGaA |
18 | Heidelbergcement AG |
19 | Henkel and Co KGaA AG |
20 | Infineon Technologies AG |
21 | KandS AG |
22 | Lanxess AG |
23 | Linde AG |
24 | Merck KGaA |
25 | Muenchener Rueckversicherungs Gesellschaft in Muenchen AG |
26 | RWE AG |
27 | SAP SE |
28 | Siemens AG |
29 | ThyssenKrupp AG |
30 | Volkswagen AG |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, J., Diehl, MR. & Paterlini, S. The Influence of Corporate Elites on Women on Supervisory Boards: Female Directors’ Inclusion in Germany. J Bus Ethics 165, 347–364 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04119-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04119-6