How Experience and Network Ties Affect the Influence of Demographic Minorities on Corporate Boards
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
This study examines how the influence of directors who are demographic minorities on corporate boards is contingent on the prior experience of board members and the larger social structural context in which demographic differences are embedded. We assess the effects of minority status according to functional background, industry background, education, race, and gender for a large sample of corporate outside directors at Fortune/Forbes 500 companies. The results show that (1) the prior experience of minority directors in a minority role on other boards can enhance their ability to exert influence on the focal board, while the prior experience of minority directors in a majority role can reduce their influence; (2) the prior experience of majority directors in a minority role on other boards can enhance the influence of minority directors on the focal board, and (3) minority directors are more influential if they have direct or indirect social network ties to majority directors through common memberships on other boards. Results suggest that demographic minorities can avoid out-group biases that would otherwise minimize their influence when they have prior experience on other boards or social network ties to other directors that enable them to create the perception of similarity with the majority.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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