The Influence of Corporate Elites on Women on Supervisory Boards: Female Directors’ Inclusion in Germany
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.
KeywordsBoard diversity Corporate elite Social identity theory
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.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bilimoria, D., & Piderit, S. K. (1994). Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1453–1477.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- Domhoff, G. W. (2002). Who rules America? Power and politics (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Holst, E., & Kirsch, A. (2016). Corporate boards of large companies: More momentum needed for gender parity. DIW Economic Bulletin, 3, 13–25.Google Scholar
- Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 56–87.Google Scholar
- Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. (1974). The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7, 55–60.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33, 94–109.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Useem, M. (1984). The inner circle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zweigenhaft, R. L., & Domhoff, G. W. (2006). Diversity in the power elite: How it happened, why it matters. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar