Board experiential diversity and corporate radical innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research Summary How does board experiential diversity affect corporate radical innovation? We find that the combined diversity of directors' educational, industrial, and organizational experiences spurs the quantity and quality of path‐breaking patents developed at a firm. Instrumental variable analysis leveraging exogenous variation in firm access to the nonlocal supply of directors with diverse experiences indicates causality, which is corroborated by difference‐in‐differences tests. Firm heterogeneity suggests experientially diverse directors spur radical innovation by better serving the firm's advisory needs rather than via improved governance. Our findings enrich theoretical insights into how corporate board leadership may affect innovation and long‐term value creation at the firm. Managerial Summary This study offers practical guidance on director recruitment. Board directors with diverse educational, industrial, and organizational experiences can support the invention of radical technology. This type of innovation can create substantial economic and social value. Noting the benefits of diverse experiences in the boardroom, corporate executives can search beyond the traditional director pedigree (e.g., Ivy League‐educated financiers), where female and minority individuals remain underrepresented. In doing so, the firm can find more qualified candidates to assemble a demographically and intellectually diverse board, thus cultivating an inclusive corporate culture conducive to shareholder and stakeholder value creation.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".