Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 141, Issue 2, pp 267–287 | Cite as

Resistance to Change in the Corporate Elite: Female Directors’ Appointments onto Nordic Boards

  • Aleksandra Gregorič
  • Lars OxelheimEmail author
  • Trond Randøy
  • Steen Thomsen
Article

Abstract

In this empirical study, we investigate the variation in firms’ response to institutional pressure for gender-balanced boards, focusing specifically on the preservation of prevailing practices of director selection and its impact on the representation of women on the board of directors. Using 8 years of data from publicly listed Nordic corporations, we show societal pressure to be one of the determinants of female directorship. Moreover, in some corporations, the director selection process may work to maintain “a traditional type of board”. In such boards, demographic diversity among male members appears to be associated with a lower share of female directors, although we cannot establish wether this reflects discrimination or a desire to maintain critical competencies. With this paper we add to the theoretical understanding of the factors underlying female board appointments by adopting an institutional theory lens to study female board representation. Viewing the demands for gender-balanced boards in terms of societal pressure for the de-institutionalization of the prevailing norms and practices, we highlight preferences for maintaining established practices as a potentially important barrier to institutional change. On these grounds, we conjecture on the relationship between the gender diversity of boards and other diversity dimensions. We suggest that a board room gender quota (if implemented) is supplemented by policies to ensure the transparency of board changes, in order to prevent the crowding out of other diversity dimensions.

Keywords

Board of directors Gender diversity Gender quota Board diversity Corporate elite 

References

  1. Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, 137–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Astley, W. G., & Van den Ven, A. H. (1983). Central perspectives and debates in organizational theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bøhren, Ø. & Staubo, S. (2014). Does mandatory gender balance work? Changing organizational form to avoid board upheaval. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 152–168.Google Scholar
  5. Bøhren, O., & Strøm, Ø. (2010). Governance and politics: Regulating independence and diversity in the board room. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 37, 1281–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brammer, S. S., & Millington, A. (2006). Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll, W. K., & Fennema, M. (2002). Problems in the study of transnational business community. International Sociology, 19, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1–22.Google Scholar
  9. Clemens, B. W., & Douglas, T. J. (2005). Understanding strategic responses to institutional pressures. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1205–1213.Google Scholar
  10. Coles, J. L., Naveen, D. D., & Naveen, L. (2008). Boards: Does one size fit all? Journal of Financial Economics, 87, 329–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1988). An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 562–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobin, F., & Jung, J. (2011). Corporate board gender diversity and stock performance: The competence gap or institutional investor bias? North Carolina Law Review, 89, 809–838.Google Scholar
  14. Economist. (2010). Skirting the issue: Imposing quotas for women in boardrooms tackles a symptom of discrimination, not the cause. March 11th, print edition.Google Scholar
  15. Fanto, J. A., Solan, L. M., & Darley, J. M. (2011). Justifying board diversity. North Carolina Law Review, 89, 901–936.Google Scholar
  16. Farrell, K. A., & Hersch, P. L. (2005). Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feld, S. L. (1982). Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review, 47, 797–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filatotchev, I., Toms, S., & Wright, M. (2006). The firm’s strategic dynamics and corporate life-cycle. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2, 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fligstein, N. (1985). The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms, 1919–1979. American Sociological Review, 50, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Goodstein, J. D. (1994). Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work–family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 350–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022–1054.Google Scholar
  23. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin, K. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), Organizational institutionalism (pp. 1–46). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Loundsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heemskerk, E. M. (2011). The social field of the European corporate elite: A network analysis of interlocking directorates among Europe’s largest corporate boards. Global Networks, 11, 440–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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, 747–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 941–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ingram, P., & Simons, T. (1995). Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness to work–family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1466–1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, et al. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, S., Schnatterly, K., Bolton, J. F., & Tugle, C. S. (2011). Antecedents of new director social capital. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1781–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Julian, S. D., Ofori-Dankwa, J. C., & Justis, R. T. (2008). Understanding strategic responses to interest group pressures. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 948–963.Google Scholar
  32. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Numbers: Minorities and majorities. In R. M. Kanter (Ed.), Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.Google Scholar
  35. Leblebici, H., Salancik, G., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of the U.S. radio broadcast industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 333–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Masulis, R., Wang, C., & Xie, F. (2012). Globalizing the boardroom—The effects of foreign directors on corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53, 527–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Matsa, D., & Miller, A. (2011). Chipping away at the glass ceiling: Gender spillovers in corporate leadership. American Economic Review, 101, 635–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: International Review, 18, 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Okhmatovskiy, I., & David, R. J. (2011). Setting your own standards: Internal corporate governance codes as a response to institutional pressure. Organization Science, 23, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13, 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oxelheim, L., Gregoric, A., Randøy, T., & Thomsen, S. (2013). On the internationalization of corporate boards—The case of Nordic firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 44, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35, 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rhodes, M., & Van Apeldoorn, B. (1998). Capital unbound? The transformation of European corporate governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 5, 406–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Stafsudd, A. (2006). People are strange when you’re a stranger: Senior executives select similar successors. European Management Review, 3, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: International Review, 17, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reforms, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Useem, M., & Karabel, J. (1986). Pathways to top corporate management. American Sociological Review, 51, 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Waldstrøm, C., & Madsen, H. (2007). Social relations among managers: Old boys’ and young women’s networks. Women in Management Review, 22, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Westphal, J. D., & Khanna, P. (2003). Keeping directors in line: Social distancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 351–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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, 169–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1995). Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 60–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Withers, M. C., Hillman, A. J., & Cannella, A. C. (2012). A multidisciplinary review of the director selection literature. Journal of Management, 38, 243–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woidtke, T. (2002). Agents watching agents? Evidence from pension fund ownership and firm value. Journal of Financial Economics, 63(1), 99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksandra Gregorič
    • 1
  • Lars Oxelheim
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Trond Randøy
    • 4
  • Steen Thomsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of International Economics and Management, Center for Corporate GovernanceCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.Lund University School of Economics and ManagementLund UniversityLundSweden
  3. 3.Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)StockholmSweden
  4. 4.School of Business and LawUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway

Personalised recommendations