In the Shadow of Social Stereotypes: Gender diversity on corporate boards, board chair’s gender and strategic change

Abstract

<jats:p> </jats:p>

The impact of digital transformation on corporate sustainability- new evidence from Chinese listed companies

“…HHI = 1, if this is greater than the median, which indicates that the firm is in a monopoly position. Structural changes in the board can affect strategic decisions throughout the firm (Sidhu et al, 2021). Column 6) is a dummy variable for the proportion of boardroom women.…”

Internal and external interfaces of the executive suite: Advancing research on the porous bounds of strategic leadership

“…It assumes that preference emerges out of the decision-making process and that the group collectively endorses a particular course of action. Scholars have used this approach to study strategic change (Boeker, 1997;Wiersema and Bantel, 1992;Sidhu et al, 2021), innovation strategy (Bantel and Jackson, 1989;Qian et al, 2013;West and Anderson, 1996), international strategy (Herrmann and Datta, 2005;Nielsen and Nielsen, 2011), and competitive strategy (Hambrick et al, 1998;Marcel et al, 2010). In this approach, group-level mechanisms have taken center stage, such as different types of conflict (Amason, 1996;Simons and Peterson, 2000), cognitive diversity (Kilduff et al, 2000;Narayan et al, 2021), and informational availability to inform decisions (Alexiev et al, 2010).…”

From Seats at the Table to Voices in the Discussion: Antecedents of Underrepresented Director Participation in Board Meetings

“…However, for these benefits to be realized, not only do underrepresented groups need to occupy seats at the board table, but they must also be active participants in board meetings. Thus, we follow recent theorizing (Acharya and Pollock (in press; Sidhu et al, 2020; Weck et al, 2021) that departs from quantifying the number of seats underrepresented directors hold. Instead, we focus on the participation of underrepresented individuals in boardroom discussions.…”

“…Indeed, recent research challenges scholars to move beyond the assumption that the number of seats that underrepresented directors hold is equivalent to commensurate participation in board discussions. Instead, there are increasing calls to understand the barriers to underrepresented individuals’ participation in critical discussions and tasks (Acharya and Pollock (in press; Sidhu et al, 2020; Weck et al, 2021). For instance, research clearly indicates that individual demographic differences affect important aspects of group interaction (Skvoretz and Fararo, 1996; Webster and Foschi, 1988) and can often lead to outgroup marginalization and decreased participation (Karakowsky and McBey, 2004; Sidhu et al, 2020; Wagner and Berger, 1997; Webber and Donahue, 2001).…”

“…Instead, there are increasing calls to understand the barriers to underrepresented individuals’ participation in critical discussions and tasks (Acharya and Pollock (in press; Sidhu et al, 2020; Weck et al, 2021). For instance, research clearly indicates that individual demographic differences affect important aspects of group interaction (Skvoretz and Fararo, 1996; Webster and Foschi, 1988) and can often lead to outgroup marginalization and decreased participation (Karakowsky and McBey, 2004; Sidhu et al, 2020; Wagner and Berger, 1997; Webber and Donahue, 2001). The limited evidence related to this phenomenon in boards suggests that even the corporate elite may be susceptible to this problem.…”