Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue
This study investigated how female directors of corporate boards of directors (BoD) experience boardroom dynamics. The study represents an initial research trend that moves from a unilateral focus on financial outcomes of female representation in BoDs toward stronger attention on the social dynamics in the boardroom. Drawing on social identity theory, the study proposed that female directors often constitute an out-group within the BoD, preventing them from experiencing positive board dynamics. More specifically, the study explored the extent to which female directors do experience less justice, lower cohesion, and higher levels of conflicts within the BoD than their male counterparts do. Moreover, we assumed that female directors with nontraditional educational backgrounds would be particularly likely to experience negative boardroom dynamics whereas female chairpersons of BoDs would perceive boardroom dynamics more positively than other female directors. The sample consisted of 491 directors from 149 BoDs. Our findings revealed that there were generally few differences in the way female and male directors experienced boardroom dynamics and female chairpersons of BoDs did not perceive the dynamics differently than other female directors. Female directors with nontraditional educational backgrounds perceived the boardroom dynamics somewhat more negatively than other female directors, but the differences were not statistically significant. The conclusions from this study are that there are reasons to believe that female directors are welcomed into boardrooms, not perceived as out-groups, and BoDs are able to benefit from the female directors’ experience and skills.
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Adams, S. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2005). Local knowledge advances women’s access to corporate boards. Corporate Governance, 13, 836–846. CrossRef
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35. CrossRef
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bilimoria, D. (2000). Building the businesss case for women corporate directors. In R. J. Burke & M. C. Mattis (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: International challenges and opportunities (pp. 25–40). Boston: Kluwer Academic. CrossRef
Brewer, M. B. (1995). Managing diversity: The role of social identities. In S. E. Jackson & M. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research and paradigms for a changing work place (pp. 47–68). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. CrossRef
Campbell, K., & Minguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 435–451. CrossRef
Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. The Financial Review, 38, 33–53. CrossRef
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. CrossRef
Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2003a). Are director equity policies exclusionary? Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 415–432. CrossRef
Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2003b). Women in the boardroom: A business imperative. Journal of Business Strategy, 24, 8–10. CrossRef
De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1997). Minority dissent in organizations. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van De Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 72–86). London: Sage. CrossRef
Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Schrader, C. B. (2003). Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11, 102–111. CrossRef
Eriksen, W., & Einarsen, S. (2004). Gender minority as a risk factor of exposure to bullying at work: The case of male assistant nurses. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 473–492. CrossRef
Eyring, A., & Stead, B. A. (1998). Shattering the glass ceiling: Some successful corporate practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 245–251. CrossRef
Farrell, K. A., & Hersch, P. L. (2005). Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 85–1006. CrossRef
Fiske, S., & Neuberg, S. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 23 (pp. 1–74). New York: Academic Press.
Fondas, N., & Sassalos, S. (2000). A different voice in the boardroom: How the presence of women directors affects board influence over management. Global Focus, 12, 13–22.
Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24, 489–505.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432. CrossRef
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heidrick, & Struggles, (2007). Corporate governance in Europe 2007report: Raising the bar. Paris: Heidrick, & Struggles International Inc.
Huse, M., & Solberg, A. G. (2006). Gender related board room dynamics: How Scandinavian women make and can make contributions on corporate boards. Women in Management Review, 21, 113–130. CrossRef
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422–447. CrossRef
Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. CrossRef
Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. (1997). To agree or not to agree: Diversity, conflict, and group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287–306. CrossRef
Joshi, A., & Jackson, S. E. (2003). Managing workforce diversity to enhance cooperation in organizations. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), Organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 277–296). Chichester: Wiley.
Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37, 145–164. CrossRef
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. S. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press. CrossRef
Leymann, H. (1993). Mobbing—Psychoterror am Arbeitspladz und wie man sich dagegen wehren kann (Mobbing—psychoterror in the workplace and how one can defend oneself). Reinbeck: Rowohlt.
Masters, B. (2008). Norway sets the pace for women with board quotas. Financial Times. June 27.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationships between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855. CrossRef
O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, social integration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37. CrossRef
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. CrossRef
Rose, C. (2007). Does female representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 404–413. CrossRef
Rothbart, M., & John, O. (1985). Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of effects of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 81–104. CrossRef
Sanchez-Mazas, M., Roux, P., & Mugny, G. (1994). When the outgroup becomes the ingroup and when the ingroup becomes the outgroup: Xenophobia and social categorization in a resource allocation task. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 417–423. CrossRef
Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 346–368. CrossRef
Shrader, C. B., Blackburn, V. B., & Iles, P. (1997). Women in management and firm financial performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 355–372.
SSB. (2008). Statistics Norway. http://www.ssb.no.
Summers, I., Coffelt, T., & Horton, R. (1988). Work group cohesion. Psychological Reports, 63, 627–636. CrossRef
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 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, 320–337. CrossRef
Torchia, M., Calabro, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards; From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 299–317. CrossRef
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579. CrossRef
Turner, R. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 25–64). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 366–398. CrossRef
- Women in the Boardroom: How Do Female Directors of Corporate Boards Perceive Boardroom Dynamics?
Gro Ellen Mathisen
- Publication date
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta