A social capital view of women on boards and their impact on firm performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The objective of this paper is to leverage a two-sided view of social capital to develop a model of board gender diversity and firm performance using social capital data from Northeast Regional Center of Rural Development. Design/methodology/approach The authors examine a large sample of 2,322 US publicly listed firms over the period 1996 to 2009. The final sample consists of 14,634 firm-year observations. Findings The authors find that when a firm's social network is not supportive of gender diversity, corporate boards have lower levels of female representation. The strength of a social network's social ties exacerbates the relationship between social capital and board gender diversity. The authors also report a negative relationship between female board membership and firm performance in social networks that are not pro-diversity. Robustness tests reveal that the authors’ social capital view of board diversity also applies to board ethnic diversity. Research limitations/implications This study focuses primarily on blue chip firms due to data constraints. It will be interesting for future researchers to investigate a broader spectrum of firms from a broader perspective of diversity beyond the study’s gender and ethnicity findings. Furthermore, this study assesses the US context, and future research could investigate firm sociability in other national contexts. Practical implications This study contributes new insights to the discourse on gender diversity on corporate boards which stand to inform both policy and practice. The results of the study can inform the position of an industry association on board gender diversity, with guidance on how messaging across networks can be more effective should it account for the hidden bias that the authors uncover in the current study. From a manager's perspective, this study can help those managers and boards trying to enhance board gender diversity by providing a more complete understanding of the factors that can limit progress. Originality/value This study contributes a social capital view of board gender diversity to the growing literature of corporate governance, board diversity and local environmental influences on corporate policies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it