Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:58:24.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Gender Composition of the Upper Echelons and Firm Sustainability Performance: an Examination of Istanbul Stock Exchange Companies

from Part II - CSR and Sustainable Development Cross-Country Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2019

By
F. Pinar Acar  and
A. Gozde Gozum
Edited by
Onyeka Osuji ,
Franklin N. Ngwu  and
Dima Jamali
Onyeka Osuji
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Franklin N. Ngwu
Affiliation:
Pan-Atlantic University, Nigeria
Dima Jamali
Affiliation:
American University of Beirut
Get access

Summary

The chapter examines the link between upper echelons gender composition and firm sustainability performance. Gender composition is considered as the level of women on TMTs and boards. Specifically, it is considered whether presence of three or more women on company boards as well as TMTs influence sustainability performance. Thereby, the study incorporates new theoretical developments by conceptualizing gender level using critical mass concept. The sample also consists of top performing 100 firms in Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) known as BIST 100. A dataset containing information of BIST 100 companies’ TMT members, board of directors, CEOs, as well as firm size, profitability, sustainability performance, and industry among others were constructed by using the data provided in PDP (Public Disclosure Platform). The findings of the study indicate that critical mass of women on board of directors is important for sustainability performance. In line with token theory and critical mass proposition, in the present sample, having three or more women directors on boards of directors improves the sustainability performance of companies.

Keywords

Corporate GovernanceCritical Mass TheoryGenderSustainabilityTeam CompositionTurkeyUpperEchelons
Type
Chapter
Information
Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing and Emerging Markets
Institutions, Actors and Sustainable Development
 , pp. 258 - 278
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ancona, D. G., Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321–341.Google Scholar
Arat, Y. (2010). Religion, politics and gender equality in Turkey: Implications of a democratic paradox Third World Quarterly, 31, 869–884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aycan, Z. (2004). Key success factors for women in management in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G. and Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 192–221.Google Scholar
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 107–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F. and Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your heart’s content: a model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 802–836.Google Scholar
Barton, D. (2011). Capitalism for the long term. Harvard Business Review 89, 84–91.Google Scholar
Bear, S., Rahman, N., and Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation, Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615.Google Scholar
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L. and Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 709–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsa Istanbul (2018). BIST Sustainability Index. available at www.borsaistanbul.com/en/indices/bist-stock-indices/bist-sustainability-index, accessed April 18, 2018.Google Scholar
Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 185–97.Google Scholar
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 946–967.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. and Minguez-Vera, A. (2010). Female board appointments and firm valuation: Short and long-term effects. Journal of Management & Governance, 14, 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannella, A. A., Park, J. and Lee, H. (2008). Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member co-location and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 197–237.Google Scholar
Capital Market Boards of Turkey (Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu) (2011). Kurumsal yönetim ilkelerinin belirlenmesine ve uygulanmasina ilişkin tebliğ.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A. (2002). The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, M. A. and Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 533–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A. and Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30, 749–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, H. (2014). Board capital, CEO power and R&D investment in electronics firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(5), 422–436.Google Scholar
Chuang, T., Nakatani, K. and Zhou, D. (2009) An exploratory study of the extent of information technology adoption in SMEs: An application of upper echelon theory. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. and Glass, C. (2017). Women on corporate boards: Do they advance corporate social responsibility? Human Relations, 71(7), 897–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2007). Business ethics. Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Datta, D. K., Gutherie, J. P. and Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 135-145.Google Scholar
DeBakker, F., Groenewegen, P. and DenHond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business and Society, 44(3), 283–317.Google Scholar
Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 26(2), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Gender differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Carli, L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L. and Bourgeois, L. J. (1997). Conflict and strategic choice: How top management teams disagree. California Management Review, 39(2), 42–62.Google Scholar
Erkut, S., Kramer, V. W. and Konrad, A. M. (2008). Critical mass: Does the number of women on a corporate board make a difference? In Vinnicombe, S., Singh, V., Burke, R., Bilimoria, D. and Huse, M, eds., Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Research and Practice, London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Escriba-Esteve, A., Sanchez-Peinado, L. and Sanchez-Peinado, E. (2009). The influence of top management teams in the strategic orientation and performance of small and medium-sized enterprises. British Journal of Management, 20, 581–97.Google Scholar
European Professional Women’s Network (2008). 3rd European PWN Board Women Monitor.Google Scholar
European Union [EU] (2016). Corporate social responsibility for All Project Turkey, Sustainability Reporting National Review Report.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C. and Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams and boards. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Whitehead, J. and Campbell, A. (2009). What drives leaders to make bad decisions? Leader to leader, 53, 52–58.Google Scholar
Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate governance. Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 267–271.Google Scholar
Forbes, D. and Milliken, F. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision‐making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489‐505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbreath, J. (2011). Are there gender-related influences on corporate sustainability? A study of women on boards of directors. Journal of Management and Organization, 17(1), 17–38.Google Scholar
Gamerschlag, R., Moller, K. and Verbeeten, F. (2011). Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: Empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science, 5(2–3), 233–262.Google Scholar
García-Meca, E., García-Sánchez, I. M. and Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2015). Board diversity and its effects on bank performance: An international analysis. Journal of Banking and Finance, 53, 202–214.Google Scholar
García-Retamero, R. and López-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55 (1–2), 51–61.Google Scholar
Glass, C., Cook, A. and Ingersoll, A. R. (2016). Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25, 495–511.Google Scholar
Glick, P. and Fiske, S. T. (2007). Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In Crosby, F. J., Stockdale, M. S. and Ropp, S. A., eds., Sex discrimination in the workplace. Malden: Blackwell 155–187.Google Scholar
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T. et al., (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and Benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 , 763–775.Google Scholar
Glick, P., Sakalli-Uğurlu, N., Akbas, G., Orta, I.M. and Ceylan, S. (2016). Why do women endorse honor beliefs? Ambivalent sexism and religiosity as predictors. Sex Roles, 75, 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., Wilk, K. and Perreault, M. (1995). Images of occupations: Components of gender and status in occupational stereotypes. Sex Roles, 32, 565–582.Google Scholar
Golden, B. R. and Zajac, E. J. (2001). When will boards influence strategy? Inclination power strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1087–1111.Google Scholar
Gray, R., Javad, M., Power, D. M. and Sinclair, C. D. (2001). Social and environmental disclosure and corporate characteristics: A research note and extension. Journal of Business Finance & Account, 28(3–4), 327–356.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. (1989). Guest editor’s introduction: Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic Management Review, 10, 5–15.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32, 334–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. and Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.Google Scholar
Haynes, K. and Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11), 1145–1163.Google Scholar
Heilman, M. E. (1997). Gender discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: The role of gender stereotypes. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 877–889.Google Scholar
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, M. E. and Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92.Google Scholar
Hermann, P. and Datta, D. K. (2005). Relationships between top management team Characteristics and international diversification: An empirical investigation. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 69–78.Google Scholar
Holme, R. and Watts, P. (2000). Corporate social responsibility: Making good business sense. Geneva: The World Business Council for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
Horwitz, S. K. and Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015.Google Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M. and Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 249–267.Google Scholar
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. and Gupta, V. eds., (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. California: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
International Finance Corporation (2011). Focus: Women on Boards; A Conversation with Male Directors. A Global Corporate Governance Forum Publication.Google Scholar
International Labor Office [ILO] (1999). Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention. No. 182.Google Scholar
International Labor Office (1958). Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention. No. 111.Google Scholar
International Labor Office (1951). Equal Remuneration Convention. No. 100.Google Scholar
International Labor Office (1949). Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention. No. 98.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A. and Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on group and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801–830.Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B. and Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(4), 741–763.Google Scholar
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990.Google Scholar
Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. and İmamoğlu, E. O. (2002). Value domains of Turkish adults and university students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, Z., Lew, Y. K. and Park, B. (2015). Institutional legitimacy and norms-based CSR marketing practices: Insights from MNCs operating in a developing economy. International Marketing Review, 32(5), 463–491.Google Scholar
Khanna, T., Palepu, K. G. and Sinha, J. (2005). Strategies that fit emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 63–74.Google Scholar
Kidder, D. L. and Parks McLean, J. (2001). The good soldier: Who is she? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 228, 939–959.Google Scholar
Kirsch, A. (2018). The gender composition of corporate boards: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 346–364.Google Scholar
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K. and Thomas, D. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42, 3–21.Google Scholar
Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V. and Erkut, S. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145–164.Google Scholar
Kolk, A. (2005). Environmental reporting by multinationals from the Triad: Convergence or divergence. Management International Review, 45(1), 145–167.Google Scholar
Kumra, S. and Vinnicombe, S. (2008). A study of the promotion to partner process in a professional services firm: How women are disadvantaged. British Journal of Management, 19, S65–S74.Google Scholar
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M. and Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.Google Scholar
Lin, C. (2008). Clarifying the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors, gender, and knowledge sharing in workplace organizations in Taiwan. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 241–250.Google Scholar
Lindgreen, A., Maon, F., Reast, J. and Yani-De-Soriano, M. (2012). Guest editorial: Corporate social responsibility in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 393–395.Google Scholar
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
Michel, J. G. and Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 9–37.Google Scholar
Milliken, F. J. and Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 402–433.Google Scholar
Mun, E. and Jung, J. (2018). Change above the glass ceiling: Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity in Japanese firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), 409–440.Google Scholar
Murray, A. I. (1989). Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Leaders and Leadership, 10(1), 125–141.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. and Faff, R. (2012). Impact of board size and board diversity on firm value: Australian evidence. Corporate Ownership and Control, 4, 24–32.Google Scholar
Nielsen, S. (2010). Top management team diversity: A review of theories and methodologies, International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(3), 301–316.Google Scholar
Official Gazette (T.C. Resmi Gazete), 11/02/2011, No:28201.Google Scholar
Official Gazette (T.C. Resmi Gazete), 30/12/2011, No:28158.Google Scholar
Öngen, D. E. (2007). The relationships between sensation seeking and gender role orientations among Turkish university students. Sex Roles, 57, 111–118.Google Scholar
Özdemir, F. (2016). Çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik üzerinde dini yönelim tiplerinin yordayici gücü (The predictive power of religious orientation type on ambivalent sexism), Nesne, 4, 89–107.Google Scholar
Özkan, T. and Lajunen, T. (2005). Masculinity, femininity, and the Bem sex role inventory in Turkey. Sex Roles, 52, 103–110. PDP (2018). Public Disclosure Platform. Available at www.kap.org.tr/en/, accessed April 11, 2018,Google Scholar
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening process theory. Organizational Science, 7, 615–631.Google Scholar
Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K. and Xin, K. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.Google Scholar
Pitcher, P. and Smith, A. D. (2001). Top management team heterogeneity: Personality, power, and proxies. Organization Science, 12, 1–18.Google Scholar
Post, C., Rahman, N. and McQuillen, C. (2015). From board composition to corporate environmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 423–435.Google Scholar
Richardson, G., Taylor, G. G. and Lanis, R. (2016). Women on the board of directors and corporate tax aggressiveness in Australia: An empirical analysis. Accounting Research Journal, 29(3), 313–331.Google Scholar
Rindova, V. (1999). What corporate boards have to do with strategy: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 953–75.Google Scholar
Roberto, M. A. (2003). The stable core and dynamic periphery in top management teams. Management Decision, 41, 120–131.Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A. and Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A. and Kilianski, S. E. (2000), Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328.Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E. and Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179.Google Scholar
Rudman, A. and Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations, Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79.Google Scholar
Sabanci University. (2017). Women on Board Turkey, 5th Annual Report, Corporate Governance Forum of Turkey.Google Scholar
Sakalli, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44, 599–610.Google Scholar
Sakalli-Uğurlu, N. (2002), Çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması (Ambivalent sexism inventory: a study of reliability and validity). Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 17, 47–58.Google Scholar
Sakalli-Uğurlu, N. and Beydoğan, B. (2002). Turkish college students’ attitudes toward women managers: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and gender differences. Journal of Psychology, 136(6), 647–656.Google Scholar
Sambharya, R. B. (1996). Foreign experience of top management teams and international diversification strategies of U.S. multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 739–46.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.-C. and Yoon, G., eds., Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications, pp. 85–119. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Sexton, D. L. and Bowman-Upton, N. (1990). Female and male entrepreneurs: Psychological characteristics and their role in gender related discrimination. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 29–36.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.Google Scholar
Simons, T., Pelled, L. and Smith, K. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673.Google Scholar
Sümer, H. C. (2006). Women in management: Still waiting to be full members of the club. Sex Roles, 55, 63–72.Google Scholar
Stulmacher, A. F. and Poitras, J. (2010), Gender and job role congruence: A field study of trust in labor mediators. Sex Roles, 63, 489–499.Google Scholar
TCMA [Turkish Capital Markets Association] (2014). The handbook of the Turkish Capital Markets. Istanbul: TCMA Publication.Google Scholar
TISK (2016). Corporate social responsibility for All Project Turkey, sustainability reporting, National Review Report. available at http://tisk.org.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/192016/04/CSR.pdf accessed February 25, 2018.Google Scholar
TurkStat (2017). Laborforce statistics. Available from www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=24630 accessed August 25, 2017.Google Scholar
UNDP/EU Commission (2008). Turkey Corporate Social Responsibility Baseline Report. available from http://kssd.org/site/dl/uploads/CSR_Report_en.pdf accessed April 28, 2018.Google Scholar
Ward, S. J. and King, L. A. (2018). Gender differences in emotion explain women’s lower immoral intentions and harsher moral condemnation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 653–669.Google Scholar
Welbourne, T. M., Cycyota, C. S. and Ferrante, C. J. (2007). Wall street reaction to women IPOs: An examination of gender diversity in top management teams. Group & Organization Management, 32, 524–547.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 7–24.Google Scholar
Wiersema, M. F. and Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 91–121.Google Scholar
Williams, K. Y. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.Google Scholar
Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E. and Peng, M. W. (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Commission on Economic Development [WCED] (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
World Economic Forum (2016). The global gender gap report. Available at http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report- 192016/ accessed April 25, 2018.Google Scholar
World Economic Forum (2016). Gender parity and human capital. Global gender gap Report. Available from http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report- 192016/rankings/ accessed April 25, 2018.Google Scholar
Yang, Q., Xue, Y. and Yurtoglu, B. B. (2007). Does the Strategic Role and the Control Role of the Board of Directors Exist in Chinese Listed Companies? (Project No. 07JC630057) and (Project No. 2008BJB018), Shanghai, China: Social Science of Educational Minister project and Shanghai Social Science.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×