Institutional Resistance: All-Male Boards in the 21st Century. Administrative Sciences Association of Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to institutional theory, isomorphism enables firms to acquire a license-to-operate and vital organizational resources. Yet, organizational fields often include small numbers of organizations that resist prevalent institutionalized norms. We study what sets institutional resistors apart from their conforming peers. We hypothesize that organizations with features which shield them from institutional pressures (reduced susceptibility) or compel them to ignore specific norms (reduced receptivity) are most likely to follow a strategy of institutional resistance. Empirically, we focus on major publicly traded corporations resisting mounting pressures to include women on boards. We find support for our hypotheses in a panel of S&P500 firms from 2003-2012. Specifically, all-male boards are more likely in firms which are comparatively less visible than their peers or primarily engage in business-to-business sales, reducing their susceptibility to institutional pressures. Moreover, all-male boards are more likely in firms with more inside directors, older directors, as well as those head-quartered in more conservative communities, reducing their receptivity for the institutional norm in question. We discuss implications for institutional theory and research on corporate social responsibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".