How do women directors ensure corporate ethics? The role of board tenure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women board members have been shown to reduce corporate misconduct. We ask how they accomplish this given that their numbers are small, their voices often go unheard, and they tend to be on committees that have been considered less important. Using social identity theory and the theory of gendered expectations, we hypothesize that long tenure on the board is the characteristic that allows a woman director’s voice to be heard. We test our hypothesis by looking at women directors’ power to reduce stock option backdating. Our hypothesis regarding long tenure is supported. Other sources of power such as critical mass, prestige and ownership power are not significantly related to reduced corporate misconduct. We use logit regression and perform several robustness checks, including instrumental variable techniques to deal with possible endogeneity. We discuss the implications of our findings for management practice and board structure. • Long tenure on the board allows women directors’ voices to be heard • Long-tenured women directors reduce option backdating misconduct • Other forms of power do not help women directors reduce corporate misconduct
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".