ror.org/051gb6s93
Résumés
Abstract
The literature explaining the representation of women on corporate boards (WOCB) has mainly relied on a rational economic perspective. Our study differs by relying on a socialized perspec-tive that is based on Schneider’s (1987) attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model, Pfeffer’s (1983) organizational demography framework, and Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) social identity theory. We used a sample of French companies listed in the SBF 120 index during 2006-2010 to explore the impact of following antecedents of WOCB: male directors’ demographic traits, hu-man capital, and social capital.
Keywords:
- gender,
- diversity,
- board of directors,
- board composition,
- corporate governance,
- female directors
Résumé
La littérature explique la représentation des femmes dans les conseils d’administration (WOCB) en s’appuyant principalement sur une perspective économique rationnelle. Notre étude est differente dans le sens ou elle se fonde sur une perspective socialisée basée sur le modèle ASA (attraction-selection-attrition) de Schneider (1987), le cadre de démographie organisationnelle de Pfeffer (1983) et la théorie de l’identité sociale de Tajfel et Turner (1986). Nous avons utilisé un échantillon composé de sociétés françaises répertoriées dans l’indice SBF 120 pour la période 2006-2010 pour analyser l’impact des antécédents suivants du WOCB : les caractéristiques démographiques des administrateurs masculins, le capital humain et le capital social.
Mots-clés :
- genre,
- diversité,
- conseils d’administration,
- composition du conseil,
- gouvernance d’entreprise,
- directrices
Resumen
La literatura explica la representatividad de las mujeres en las juntas ejecutivas (WOCB) sobre todo desde una perspectiva económica racional. Nuestro estudio es distinto porque se basa en una perspectiva socializada, tomando como punto de partida el modelo ASA (atracción-selección-atrición) de Schneider (1987), el marco de demografía organizacional de Pfeffer (1983) y la teoría de la identidad social de Tajfel y Turner (1986). Además, hemos utilizado una muestra compuesta de empresas francesas registradas según el índice SBF 120 para el periodo 2006-2010 con el objetivo de analizar el impacto/efecto de los siguientes antecedentes del WOCB: las características demográficas de los hombres administradores/directores/oficiales, el capital humano y el capital social.
Palabras clave:
- género,
- diversidad,
- juntas ejecutivas,
- composición de la junta,
- gobernanza empresarial,
- directivas
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. 2009. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2): p. 291-309.
- Ahern, K. R., & Dittmar, A. K. 2012. The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1): p. 137-197.
- Allison, P. D. 1978. Measures of Inequality. American Sociological Review, 43(6): p. 865-880.
- Andersen, E. B. 1970. Asymptotic properties of conditional maximum-likelihood estimators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 32(2): p. 283-301.
- Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(Supplement 1): p. 107-124.
- Becker, G. S. 1964. Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Bilimoria, D., & Piderit, S. K. 1994. Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6): p. 1453-1477.
- Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity: a primitive theory of social structure. New York: Collier Macmillan.
- Boone, C., van Olffen, W., van Witteloostuijn, A., & De Brabander, B. 2004. The genesis of top management team diversity: Selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaper publishing, 1970-94. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5): p. 633-656.
- Bourdieu, P. 1996. The state nobility: elite schools in the field of power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Burgess, Z., & Tharenou, P. 2002. Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1): p. 39-49.
- Byrne, D. E. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
- Carlsson, G., & Karlsson, K. 1970. Age, cohorts and the generation of generations. American Sociological Review, 35(4): p. 710-718.
- Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. S. 2012. Regression analysis by example. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience.
- Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, D. R. 1999. A decade of corporate women: Some progress in the boardroom, none in the executive suite. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1): p. 93.
- Dang, R., Bender, A.-F., & Scotto, M.-J. 2014. Women on French corporate board of directors: How do they differ from their male counterparts? Journal of Applied Business Research, 30(2): p. 489-507.
- Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2): p. 301-326.
- Frank, K. A., & Yasumoto, J. Y. 1998. Linking action to social structure within a system: social capital within and between subgroups. American Journal of Sociology, 104(3): p. 642-686.
- Golden, B. R., & Zajac, E. J. 2001. When will boards influence strategy? Inclination× power = strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12): p. 1087-1111.
- Gregorič, A., Oxelheim, L., Randøy, T., & Thomsen, S. 2009. Corporate governance as a source of competitiveness for Nordic firms. Nordic Council of Ministers.
- Gregorič, A., Oxelheim, L., Randøy, T., & Thomsen, S. 2015. Resistance to change in the corporate elite: Female directors’ appointments onto Nordic boards. Journal of Business Ethics: p. 1-21.
- Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M.-J. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): p. 659-684.
- Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): p. 193-206.
- Helfat, C. E., Harris, D., & Wolfson, P. J. 2006. The pipeline to the top: Women and men in the top executive ranks of US corporations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(4): p. 42-64.
- Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Harris, I. C. 2002. Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28(6): p. 747-763.
- Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): p. 383-396.
- Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. 2007. Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4): p. 941-952.
- Huse, M. 2005. Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management, 16(s1): p. S65-S79.
- Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes Boston, Mass.
- Johnson, S., Schnatterly, K., Bolton, J. F., & Tuggle, C. 2011. Antecedents of new director social capital. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8): p. 1782-1803.
- Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. 2013. Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management, 39(1): p. 232-262.
- Kadushin, C. 1995. Friendship among the French financial elite. American Sociological Review, 60(2): p. 202-221.
- Kang, H., Cheng, M., & Gray, S. J. 2007. Corporate governance and board composition: Diversity and independence of Australian boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2): p. 194-207.
- Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
- Katz, R. 1982. The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1): p. 81-104.
- Kesner, I. F. 1988. Directors’ characteristics and committee membership: An investigation of type, occupation, tenure, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1): p. 66-84.
- Labelle, R., Francoeur, C., & Lakhal, F. 2015. To regulate or not to regulate? Early evidence on the means used around the world to promote gender diversity in the boardroom. Gender, Work & Organization, 22(4): p. 339-363.
- Liu, Y., Wei, Z., & Xie, F. 2014. Do women directors improve firm performance in China?. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28(October): p. 169-184.
- Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Chia, R. 2010. Dominant corporate agents and the power elite in France and Britain. Organization Studies, 31(3): p. 327-348.
- Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. 1992. Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management journal, 35(1): p. 9-37.
- Moulin, Y., & Point, S. 2012. Les femmes dans les conseils d’administration du SBF 120: qualités féminines ou affaires de famille? Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, 83(1): p. 31-44.
- Nekhili, M., & Gatfaoui, H. 2013. Are demographic attributes and firm characteristics drivers of gender diversity? Investigating women’s positions on French boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2): p. 227-249.
- Nguyen, D. B. 2012. Does the rolodex matter? Corporate elite’s small world and the effectiveness of boards of directors. Management Science, 58(2): p. 236-252.
- Pfeffer, J. 1972. Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative science quarterly, 17(2): p. 218-228.
- Pfeffer, J. 1983. Organizational demography. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: p. 299-357. Greenwich: JAI Press.
- Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
- Pitcher, P., & Smith, A. D. 2001. Top management team heterogeneity: Personality, power, and proxies. Organization Science, 12(1): p. 1-18.
- Ployhart, R. E., Weekley, J. A., & Baughman, K. 2006. The structure and function of human capital emergence: A multilevel examination of the attraction-selection-attrition model. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): p. 661-677.
- Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. 1983. Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence. Management Science, 29(1): p. 33-51.
- Schmidt, W. H., & Posner, B. 1983. Managerial Values in Perspective. New York: Amacom Books.
- Schneider, B. 1983. Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior: p. 1-31. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
- Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3): p. 437-453.
- Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. 2008. Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ? European Management Journal, 26(1): p. 48-58.
- Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. 2006. Do Women in Top Management Affect Firm Performance?A Panel Study of 2,500 Danish Firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(7): p. 569-593.
- Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glas, B. 1992. Categorization of Individuals on the Basis of Multiple Social Features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2): p. 207-218.
- Staw, B. M. 1977. Motivation in organizations: Toward synthesis and redirection. In B. M. Staw, & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior: p. 55-95. Chicago: St. Clair Press.
- Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. 1980. Commitment in an Experimenting Society: A Study of the Attribution of Leadership from Administrative Scenarios. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(3): p. 249-260.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity of intergroup relations. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations: p. 7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
- Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. 2009. Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3): p. 320-337.
- Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1989. Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2): p. 402-423.
- Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior 7: p. 171-222. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
- Useem, M., & Karabel, J. 1986. Pathways to top corporate management. American Sociological Review: p. 184-200.
- Vroom, V. H., & Pahl, B. 1971. Relationship between age and risk taking among managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(5): p. 399.
- Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly III, C. A. 1984. Organizational demography and turnover in top-management group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1): p. 74-92.
- Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. 2006. The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(2): p. 169-204.
- Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): p. 91-121.
- Williamson, O. E. 1984. Corporate Governance. Yale Law Review, 93(1): 1197-1230.
- Withers, M. C., Hillman, A. J., & Cannella, A. A. J. 2012. A multidisciplinary review of the director selection literature. Journal of Management, 38(1): 243-277.