Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to contribute to the literature on board gender diversity by soliciting university students' views on several perceptions raised by academics concerning the suitability of women to serve on corporate boards. In particular, if the opinions of male students differ from those of female students, this showing any gender bias.
Design/methodology/approach
The study is part of a much more comprehensive investigation into board gender diversity. It adopts a questionnaire approach, with this paper focussing on twelve research statements. Two hundred and ninety-six university students completed the questionnaires at a public university in the Czech Republic during March–April 2023. A pilot questionnaire was conducted in February 2023, resulting in minor changes being made. The data is analysed using SPSS and MedCalc® statistical software.
Findings
Whilst, in some respects, it supports the literature in relation to the observations highlighted in the research statements concerning female traits/characteristics, there is unmistakable evidence of gender bias in the respondents' opinions regarding the qualities women can bring to corporate boards. Overall, this research shows a negative bias by male respondents towards the positive attributes females can bring to the boardroom. This bias may influence the selection of female directors in the future. This research suggests that the apparent discrimination against women is not just because they are female but from a perceived mismatch between inferred female characteristics and male stereotype leadership requirements. There is, however, no gender bias with respect to students' leadership aspirations.
Practical implications
The findings of this research should help with policy-making decisions concerning the selection of future corporate board directors and help break down any negative gender selection bias. The paper adds to the discussion and debate about ethical issues related to business and broader society concerning gender diversity in senior management roles. It also adds to the political debate on the issue of legislative gender initiatives.
Originality/value
The research respondents' perceptions may well influence the decision-making process for the selection of future corporate directors. Whilst these current perceptions may, and invariably will, change over time, it is important to identify them at an early stage in the respondents' careers. This research gives a better understanding of the perceived qualities that women bring to corporate boards from an inexperienced perspective.
Keywords
Citation
Lefley, F., Trnková, G. and Vychová, H. (2024), "Gender diversity on corporate boards: importance of female traits/characteristics as perceived by university students", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 152-169. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-09-2023-0128
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
Although there is, in many cases, a strong business argument for including women on corporate boards (Brahma et al., 2021; Hamplová et al., 2022), many companies are still low on the numbers. There are also moral, ethical, equality and justice grounds for including more women on corporate boards (Post et al., 2021; Seierstad, 2016). Cundiff and Vescio (2016) argue that women are under-represented in senior leadership positions due to selection bias through focussing on gender stereotypes. One of the solutions to increase the number of women on boards has been the introduction of corporate board gender quotas. There is also pressure from various stakeholders through increased scrutiny and corporate governance, as well as institutional investors and asset managers demanding an improvement in board gender diversity (Katz et al., 2017). The coercive or legislative approach, such as quotas, is the most radical approach involving the adoption of laws by a government (Labelle et al., 2015). Whilst such influences will increase the number of women on corporate boards, there will still be the question, in some minds, as to what qualities these new female directors will bring to the boardroom. What are the gender perceptions of these various qualities? The difference in male perceptions of female managerial attributes is not new (Heilman et al., 1989; Massehgill and Di Marco, 1979) nor restricted to the public relations (PR) or communications industry, and it has changed little over time. Deal and Stevenson (1998, p. 297) argue from their USA research that “male subjects continue to have negative perceptions of female managers”. Differences in the behaviour between men and women can influence corporate decision-making (Pinheiro et al., 2023).
This leads the authors to formulate the following research question:
What qualities do women bring to corporate boards, and how do they differ from men?
To address this question, the authors formulate several research statements seeking opinions from university students. The rationale for including university students in the research is based on the authors' supposition that such students may eventually influence the shaping of corporate board membership. Whilst the authors have no preconceived views on how the students will respond to the research statements, it is evident that society, in general, is becoming more liberal and inclusive in its gender attitudes, and this may, to some extent, have been driven by younger members of our society.
The authors continue the paper by focussing on the theoretical framework, literature review and development of research statements, research design, methodology and approach, followed by the results, then the discussion, theoretical, practical, social and political implications and, finally, the conclusion.
Theoretical framework
No one theory embraces the importance of female traits/characteristics, especially with respect to their decision-making capabilities on corporate boards. This paper, therefore, draws on many theories (e.g. gender stereotype theory, gender socialisation theory, neuroeconomic theory and expectancy theory) reported in the literature that try to explain why women act in a particular way, with some views contradicting others. Some theories imply that gender is a social construct, whilst others, such as neuroeconomic (neuroscience) theory, are biologically determined and oppose constructivist approaches. Female traits/characteristics are influenced by culture, society and biology.
Gender stereotype theory implies that women have feminine traits/characteristics less prevalent in men, thus indicating a gender difference. These differences bring dissimilar values and traits to the business world, which may produce gendered decisions, judgements and behaviours (Betz et al., 1989). Heilman and Eagly (2008) argue that these differences, which flow from positive or negative attributes ascribed to women, result in biased personnel decision-making.
Such differences are sometimes based on gender socialisation theory, through which an individual learns the appropriate cultural behaviour of masculinity/femininity associated with the biological sex of men (male) and women (female), especially concerning ethical issues. Empirical evidence supporting this difference within the area of ethical considerations and corporate decision-making is given by Liu (2018). In trying to analyse the process of gender socialisation theory, sub-theories such as social learning theory (which suggests that children learn gender roles and behaviour from observing and imitating same-sex adults), cognitive development theory (this sub-theory emphasises the socialisation process's developmental nature and the child's active role in the process) and gender schema theory (where a child adopts parental values, attitudes and behaviour) have been developed.
Neuroeconomic theory, which applies neuroscientific methods to analyse and understand economically appropriate behaviour, has contributed to economic/management theory, specifically in the area of decision-making relating to fairness, trust, learning and knowledge, highlighting the differences between the sexes (Camerer et al., 2005; Kenning and Plassmann, 2005; Ryan, 2017).
Differences in behaviour between men and women may (according to neuroscience theories) also be “biologically determined” because various parts of the brain influence them in separate ways (Maxwell et al., 2009). Christov-Moore et al. (2014) also suggest that there are gender effects in the brain and behaviour between males and females. Women use both sides of the brain in decision-making whilst men only use one, implying that women can consider decision-making more broadly (Kansaku et al., 2000).
Expectancy theory focusses on the perceived (what is expected) benefits women bring to corporate boards. Guedes et al. (2023, p. 518) argue that “the value attributed to a greater gender-balanced board is related to whether individuals perceive the outcome as beneficial”. Calabrese and Manello (2021, p. 1444) state, “The expected positive effect of involving more women in boards are related to the intrinsic nature of women”. The authors believe that it is important to ascertain the views/perceptions on these issues of university students who may, in the future, aspire to corporate board positions.
Literature review and development of research statements
The literature on the “business case” for board gender diversity based on firm performance is extensive. It is, in some instances, inconclusive with arguments for and against (Ahern and Dittmar, 2012; Chen and Kao, 2021; Comi et al., 2020; Garanina and Muravyev, 2020; Hassan and Marimuthu, 2018; McGuinness et al., 2020; Post et al., 2021; Terjesen et al., 2016; Triana et al., 2014). From research undertaken by Azmat and Boring (2020), it is concluded (p. 767) “that there is a positive (and significant) relationship between firm performance and the percentage of women in boards”. The discourse is not always supportive, as Fitzsimmons (2012, p. 558) states, “It is difficult to argue that gender diversity on boards automatically produces higher performance”. Lefley and Janeček (2023), however, argue that the inconsistency in previous research may be due to the fact that the critical mass theory, used in much of the research, was based on numbers and did not take into account the level of collective action. On balance, the authors believe that the business case supports women on corporate boards. So, what are the qualities that women can bring to the board?
The literature on gender-based differences suggests that men and women have different leadership styles (Nielsen and Huse, 2010). Women differ in personality and temperament, which may influence their leadership styles. In research undertaken by Zenger and Folkman (2019), women were rated higher than men in many leadership skills/capabilities, with the conclusion from their peers that women make highly competent leaders. Women have different skills and views than their male counterparts and can bring new ideas to the boardroom (Reguera-Alvarado et al., 2017; Terjesen et al., 2009). This is supported by Francoeur et al. (2008, p. 84), who state that “women […] often bring a fresh perspective on complex issues, and this can help correct informational biases in strategy formulation and problem solving”. Women may have communication skills that differ from men's (Cunha and Lúcio Martins, 2023; Tench et al., 2017). This leads the authors to formulate the first research statement:
Women have managerial qualities and skills that are less prevalent in men.
Bilimoria and Wheeler (2000) argue that women demonstrate greater sensitivity towards others. Chen et al. (2018, p. 7) conclude from their research “that females are more sensitive to emotional expressions in interpersonal interactions, which is manifested during early stage of motivational salience monitoring and late stage of conscious appraisal of outcomes”.
Women demonstrate a greater level of sensitivity compared to men.
Matsa and Miller (2013) provide evidence that women are more compassionate when dealing with human resources layoffs. Eagly et al. (2003) indicate that women are helpful, sympathetic, kind, nurturing, gentle and genuinely concerned with others' welfare. Cunha and Lúcio Martins (2023, p. 7) quote from one of the respondents to their research, “I care about the people around me”, confirming women's compassionate, caring nature. Women are emotional and affectionate; however, it is argued in the literature that, in this respect, they are less able to be effective leaders (Tench et al., 2017).
Women are helpful, sympathetic, kind and genuinely concerned with others' welfare compared to men.
Smith and Oakley (1997) observe from their research that females may approach moral/ethical dilemmas from a more humanistic approach. Men and women will respond differently to ethical dilemmas (Hoffman, 1998).
There are gender differences in ethical considerations and decision-making in a corporate environment.
Hillman (2015) argues that within the field of corporate governance, women deliberate more over decision-making, allowing them to foresee adverse consequences; men may make business decisions more quickly but may be singularly focussed and lack detailed deliberation on other decision aspects.
Women deliberate more over decision-making.
Within the decision-making process, women tend to ask more questions, which could improve the quality of the decision (Bilimoria and Wheeler, 2000; Carter et al., 2010). Women are also prepared to debate the issues (Ingley and Van der Walt, 2005).
Women are more likely to ask questions and debate issues.
Women have different skills and views than their male counterparts and can bring new ideas to the boardroom (Reguera-Alvarado et al., 2017; Terjesen et al., 2009). Women may have communication skills that differ from men's (Cunha and Lúcio Martins, 2023; Tench et al., 2017).
Women bring new ideas, skills and views to the boardroom.
Although the literature indicates that women may be risk-takers (Adams and Funk, 2012), there appears to be greater evidence to show that, on balance, they are risk-averse (Charness and Gneezy, 2012; Croson and Gneezy, 2009; Hurley and Choudhary, 2020; Niederle and Vesterlund, 2007; Sapienza et al., 2009). To support this view, Thiruvadi and Huang (2011) suggest that female directors tend to call meetings to discuss risk issues to reduce that risk. Calabrese and Manello (2021) argue that women on corporate boards can improve risk assessment in the decision-making process.
Women are generally risk-averse.
There is some evidence to show that women are better leaders in a crisis (Zenger and Folkman, 2020). Zenger and Folkman (2020) found that women had statistically supported higher ratings in taking the initiative, learning agility, being able to inspire, motivate and develop others, build relationships, display high integrity and honesty, communicate powerfully and prolifically, being able to collaborate as part of a team, champion change, make decisions, drive for results and value diversity. Research also suggests that had more women been on corporate boards during the financial crisis in 2008, their skills may have positively affected matters. Research conducted in the USA by St. Claire et al. (2016) concluded that during the 2008 financial crisis, corporate boards with at least three female directors endured the crisis significantly better than organisations with fewer female directors. These views are supported by Seierstad (2016), who observes that following the financial crisis, there was widespread media and political condemnation of the lack of gender diversity on corporate boards.
Women are better leaders in a crisis.
It is not uncommon, even in today's society, for women to belong to informal networks which are not open to men. It is argued in the literature that business networking can be gender-specific, with women adopting “female perspectives rather than the conventional norms governing networking practices” (Huq et al., 2020, p. 274). Such networks help an organisation connect, understand and respond to its broader community environment (Bear et al., 2010). Social identity theory describes how individuals see themselves in relation to various groups, such as gender. From early research undertaken by Brass (1985), it was found that amongst non-supervisory employees, females were not well-integrated into male networks, including an organisation's dominant coalition, which negatively biased them when seeking promotion to leadership positions. Even today, in a gender equality society, there are still formal and informal social/business networks which are solely male or female-orientated. An example and by no means the only one, is Freemasonry. Whilst Freemasonry has accepted female members for many years, there are separate female and male Lodges. Socially, both men and women meet informally at gender-based functions. The authors believe that women bring a unique perspective to networks, which can positively influence corporate board decision-making.
Women usually belong to informal networks which are not open to men.
In support of the various brain effects of men and women, it is argued in the literature that men and women think and act differently because of how sex hormones impact their brains (Brizendine, 2007). Brizendine (2007, p. 26) goes on to say, “What we've found is that the female brain is so deeply affected by hormones that their influence can be said to create a woman's reality. They can shape a woman's values and desires”.
Men's and women's thinking and behavioural differences in ethical decision-making situations are determined by nature, i.e. hormones that influence the behaviour of both sexes.
Some women find balancing work with domestic responsibilities challenging, especially during the recent COVID-19 pandemic (Adisa et al., 2021; Cunha and Lúcio Martins, 2023), which may hold them back from seeking leadership roles. Cunha and Lúcio Martins (2023) argue that many women, when faced with increased working hours and responsibility, choose not to pursue leadership positions, including corporate board appointments, even refusing promotion. Thus, this confirms the importance of motherhood and the value of family life, as perceived by some women, as one of the reasons for the lack of female directors. Some women, whether mothers with children or not, who seek promotion may be held back due to what has been termed the “maternal wall bias” (Piscopo and Muntean, 2018). The glass ceiling, which women have difficulty breaking through, is often referred to in the literature as a maternal wall where a woman's work commitment is doubted when she becomes a mother. It is often seen that women's natural place is at home (Tench et al., 2017). One of the reasons that women leave the workforce appears, in some countries, to be linked to dominant gender ideologies, which are entangled with the motherhood mandate and superior feminine virtue, resulting in women bearing the major part, if not all, of household duties (Ning and Karubi, 2018). Feminine characteristics such as motherhood may increase evaluation/selection bias (Heilman and Eagly, 2008). Although some women pursue managerial careers looking for job satisfaction and personal rewards like men, these women have to find the right balance between work and maternal obligations. There is no doubt that the rise of a professional career presents some women with an intense challenge in balancing professional and family responsibilities (Meng and Neill, 2023).
Some women do not seek board appointments due to family commitments.
From the literature review, the authors identified several female traits/characteristics that may influence corporate board decision-making and efficiency. From these traits/characteristics, the above research statements (see also Table 1) were developed.
This study supports, to some extent, the literature with respect to the observations highlighted in the research statements concerning female traits/characteristics, but there is unmistakable evidence of gender bias in the respondents' opinions regarding the qualities that women can bring to corporate boards.
Research design, methodology and approach
The study is part of a much more comprehensive investigation into board gender diversity. It adopts a questionnaire approach, with this paper focussing on the twelve research statements highlighted in Table 1. A Likert Scale of 1–4 (Strongly Agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree) was applied to the perceived views expressed. The support for an “even” (no centre point) Likert scale (Lefley, 2018) and seeking university students' subjective perceptions is given by Smith and Oakley (1997). The data is analysed using SPSS and MedCalc® statistical software. The “numbers” assigned to Likert-type items express a “greater than” relationship, but how much greater is not inferred. As such, Likert-type items are measured on an ordinal scale. However, it is not uncommon for researchers to analyse data from Likert-type items using the “mean” and “standard deviation”. For support and arguments for this approach, see Clason and Dormody (1994) and, more recently, Lefley (2018). The authors also highlight the mode and percentages to support the data analysis.
University students completed the questionnaires at a public university in the Czech Republic between March and April 2023. All the students were made aware and agreed that their data would be published anonymously. The questionnaire did not request any information on the respondents' socio-economic status. A pilot questionnaire was conducted in February of the same year, resulting in minor changes being made. The sample was taken from the full-time undergraduate student population of The Faculty of Informatics and Management and represented students who, in addition to other modules, took the ‘economics' module. Questionnaires were handed out, filled in during the lessons and collected back after completion. This achieved a hundred per cent response rate, as no student refused to complete the questionnaire and is therefore representative of the target student population.
Two hundred and ninety-six students completed the questionnaire: 203 (68.6%) were male and 93 (31.4%) were female. Two hundred and forty-nine students (69.08% male and 30.92% female) answered positively to the following question–Do you eventually intend to aspire to a senior management/corporate director position? This indicated that 84.4% of respondents planned to aspire to a senior management/corporate director position, representing 85.1% of males and 82.8% of females – showing no gender difference in aspirations.
Results
The main focus of this research is to evaluate the opinions of students, many of whom may wish to aspire to senior managerial/leadership corporate positions, on the issues appertaining to the potential qualities and values that women bring to corporate boards. Twelve research statements have been developed by the authors based on the literature. First, the authors present the analysis and arguments based on the consolidated data to determine the support for the literature on the various statements formulated. This is followed by focussing on the possible differences between the opinions of male and female respondents on these statements.
Consolidated data
The consolidated data is presented in Table 2. The students were asked to indicate their agreement/disagreement with twelve research statements. There was a fifty per cent split between the positive and negative views expressed regarding these statements.
Focussing on the positive responses, the statement with the highest level of agreement was RS2: Women demonstrate a greater level of sensitivity compared to men [Mean = 1.94, σ = 0.69, Mode = 2, representing 87% of views expressed]. This supports the views of Bilimoria and Wheeler (2000), who argue that women demonstrate greater sensitivity towards others; and Chen et al. (2018), who conclude that females are more sensitive to emotional expressions in interpersonal interactions. Sensitivity in corporate management can be positive, especially regarding sustainable/environmental issues, but it can be negative regarding difficult/challenging negotiations.
This was followed by the following two statements with similar values to each other – RS12: Some women do not seek board appointments due to family commitments [Mean = 2.14, σ = 0.80, Mode = 2, representing 72% of views expressed]. This view is supported by arguments in the literature that some women find balancing work with domestic responsibilities challenging (Adisa et al., 2021; Cunha and Lúcio Martins, 2023). It is often seen that women's natural place is at home (Tench et al., 2017). There is no doubt that the rise of a professional career presents some women with an intense challenge in balancing professional and family responsibilities (Meng and Neill, 2023).
RS11: Men's and women's thinking and behavioural differences in ethical decision-making situations are determined by nature, i.e. hormones that influence the behaviour of both sexes [Mean = 2.14, σ = 0.85, Mode = 2, representing 70% of views expressed]. It is argued in the literature that men and women think and act differently because of how sex hormones impact their brains (Brizendine, 2007). Maxwell et al. (2009) also argue that the differences in behaviour between men and women may be “biologically determined” because different brain parts influence them differently. One of the male students expressed this opinion: “Women and men have different inclinations … from birth.”
The subsequent two statements also had similar values to each other – RS4: There are gender differences in ethical considerations and decision-making in a corporate environment [Mean = 2.27, σ = 0.85, Mode = 2, representing 67% of views expressed]. The views support the arguments raised in the literature that men and women respond differently to ethical dilemmas (Hoffman, 1998). Matsa and Miller (2013) also provide evidence that women are more compassionate when dealing with human resources layoffs. Smith and Oakley (1997) observe from their research that females may approach moral/ethical dilemmas from a more humanistic approach.
RS3: Women are helpful, sympathetic, kind and genuinely concerned with others' welfare compared to men [Mean = 2.26, σ = 0.79, Mode = 2, representing 66% of views expressed]. Again, this view supports the literature claiming that women demonstrate greater sensitivity towards others (Bilimoria and Wheeler, 2000) and are more compassionate when dealing with human resources layoffs (Matsa and Miller, 2013). It is also indicated in the literature that women are helpful, sympathetic, kind, nurturing, gentle and genuinely concerned with others' welfare (Eagly et al., 2003).
The final statement that received a positive response was – RS8: Women are generally risk-averse [Mean = 2.45, σ = 0.79, Mode = 2, representing 56% of views expressed]. This response is supported by the literature which, although highlighting mixed views concerning female risk-taking, generally expresses the opinion that women are risk-averse (Charness and Gneezy, 2012; Croson and Gneezy, 2009; Hurley and Choudhary, 2020; Niederle and Vesterlund, 2007; Sapienza et al., 2009).
Focussing on the negative responses, the statement with the highest level of disagreement was RS9: Women are better leaders in a crisis [Mean = 3.24, σ = 0.66, Mode = 3, representing 90% of views expressed]. This view is strongly against the interpretations expressed by Zenger and Folkman (2020), who found, from their research, that women had statistically supported higher ratings in taking the initiative, learning agility, being able to inspire, motivate and develop others, build relationships, display high integrity and honesty, communicate powerfully and prolifically, being able to collaborate as part of a team, champion change, make decisions, drive for results and value diversity; concluding that women are better leaders in a crisis. Also, from the conclusions of St. Claire et al. (2016)), based on USA research that during the 2008 financial crisis, who found that corporate boards with at least three female directors endured the crisis significantly better than organisations with fewer female directors.
The following five statements followed this–RS7: Women bring new ideas, skills and views to the boardroom [Mean = 2.95, σ = 0.74, Mode = 3, representing 78% of the opinions expressed]. It is stated in the literature that women can bring new ideas to the boardroom as a result of their different skills and views from their male counterparts (Reguera-Alvarado et al., 2017; Terjesen et al., 2009). Women can also bring a fresh perspective on complex issues, thus correcting information bias in strategy formulation decisions (Francoeur et al., 2008). Women may have communication skills that differ from men's (Cunha and Lúcio Martins, 2023; Tench et al., 2017).
RS5: Women deliberate more over decision-making [Mean = 2.85, σ = 0.84, Mode = 3, representing 69% of views expressed]. This opinion is contrary to the views expressed in the literature, where it is observed that women deliberate more over decision-making in a corporate governance environment, which allows them to foresee adverse consequences (Hillman, 2015).
RS1: Women have managerial qualities and skills that are less prevalent in men [Mean = 2.69, σ = 0.73, Mode = 3, representing 60% of views expressed]. This view is against gender stereotype theory, which implies that women have feminine traits/characteristics less prevalent in men, thus indicating a gender difference. It is also argued in the literature that these differences bring dissimilar values and traits to the business world, which may produce gendered decisions, judgements and behaviours (Betz et al., 1989). Socialisation theory also supports these differences, through which an individual learns the appropriate cultural behaviour of masculinity/femininity. The literature also argues that gender differences produce different leadership styles/skills (Nielsen and Huse, 2010; Zenger and Folkman, 2019). Reguera-Alvarado et al. (2017) and Terjesen et al. (2009) support the view that women bring other skills to the boardroom than their male counterparts. However, a comment made by one of the male respondents argues that “Women have the same abilities as men” … “I don't believe that women have better or worse management skills”.
RS10: Women usually belong to informal networks which are not open to men [Mean = 2.60, σ = 0.72, Mode = 3, representing 54% of views expressed]. Although it is not uncommon for women to belong to informal networks that are not open to men, this is becoming rare in a society that is becoming gender-neutral. On this basis, there is some support for rejecting this statement.
RS6: Women are more likely to ask questions and debate issues [Mean = 2.51, σ = 0.89, Mode = 3, representing 52% of views expressed]. The literature suggests that women are prepared to debate issues (Ingley and Van der Walt, 2005) and ask more questions within the decision process, which could improve the decision quality (Bilimoria and Wheeler, 2000; Carter et al., 2010).
Interestingly, many, if not all, of the “positive” responses refer to gender stereotype issues: sensitivity, motherhood, ethics, hormone influence, sympathy, kindness, concern for others and risk aversion. On the other hand, the “negative” responses refer to leadership issues: leaders in a crisis, new skills and views, deliberation over decision-making, managerial qualities and debating of issues. This is contrary to the findings of research undertaken by Zenger and Folkman (2019), in which women were rated higher than men in many leadership skills/capabilities, with the conclusion from their peers that women make highly competent leaders. The authors would argue that women are equal to men in leadership abilities given the opportunity.
The statements made by some of the respondents to this research reflect the varying perceptions of gender influences. Three statements are (1) “Men and women generally have different predispositions.” [Male student]; (2) “People's abilities cannot be defined by gender.” [Female student]; (3) “I don't think women are equal to men.” [Female student].
Analysis of the opinions of male and female respondents
Table 3 shows the analysis of male and female respondents' opinions. There was a significant difference (p = < 0.05) between the views of male and female respondents regarding ten research statements and a significant, but at a lower level, difference (p = < 0.10) for one of the others. Only one statement showed no meaningful difference between male and female opinions [R8: Women are generally risk-averse], with both genders agreeing that women are generally risk-averse. If women are risk-averse, this could lead to less risky corporate outcomes (Adams, 2016).
Female respondents were in greater agreement than their male counterparts concerning the following statements: RS1 Women have managerial qualities and skills that are less prevalent in men, RS2 Women demonstrate a greater level of sensitivity compared to men, RS3 Women are helpful, sympathetic, kind and genuinely concerned with others' welfare compared to men, RS4 There are gender differences in ethical considerations and decision-making in a corporate environment, RS5 Women deliberate more over decision-making, RS6 Women are more likely to ask questions and debate issues, RS7 Women bring new ideas, skills and views to the boardroom, and RS12 Some women do not seek board appointments due to family commitments. This indicates that, to some extent, women have a greater self-awareness of their natural abilities and leadership qualities and that they can bring some fresh ideas and skills to the boardroom, enhancing decision-making and improving firm performance. As men disagree with women on these issues, and as men may act as gatekeepers [gatekeepers are said to have views of gender-appropriate behaviour, roles and expectations that may bias executive selection (Oakley, 2000)], women must be given the opportunity to prove themselves.
Although male respondents believe that women do not seek board appointments due to family commitments, females see this as a greater issue. It is important that women are given the choice and are not made to believe that their role is in the home. This is supported by one of the female respondents who stated, “It is okay for a woman to choose to stay at home and take care of the family, or for her to pursue a career” – women must be given the choice and support, including child-care facilities if they have children.
However, regarding the statement that Women are better leaders in a crisis [RS9], the female respondents were unsure, but their opinions were more positive than those of the male respondents. It may be that the respondents, including women, believe that dealing with a crisis needs strength and masculinity, a view not supported by the authors. The authors believe that women's caring and sensitivity may help them deal more calmly with crises.
It is only with respect to two statements that showed a significant difference between male and female opinion that men were more in agreement, RS10 Women usually belong to informal networks which are not open to men and RS11 Men's and women's thinking and behavioural differences in ethical decision-making situations are determined by nature, i.e. hormones that influence the behaviour of both sexes. Concerning statement RS11, this would support the earlier arguments regarding RS4 that there are gender differences in ethical considerations and decision-making in a corporate environment and that these differences are, in some respect, due to nature.
Discussion and theoretical, practical, social and political implications
The empirical evidence from this research supports the arguments in the literature concerning the differing qualities women can bring to corporate boards. These differences are, in many cases, a result of gender stereotype and socialisation issues.
The difference in male perceptions of female managerial attributes is not new (Deal and Stevenson, 1998; Heilman et al., 1989; Massehgill and Di Marco, 1979) nor restricted to the PR or communications industry, and it has changed little over time. This paper presents a current picture of the situation. It supports, in many respects, the literature in relation to the observations highlighted in the research statements developed by the authors concerning female traits/characteristics. Still, there is unambiguous evidence of gender bias in the respondents' opinions regarding the qualities women can bring to corporate boards.
Overall, this research shows a negative bias by male respondents towards the positive attributes females can bring to the boardroom, a bias that may influence the selection of female directors in the future. Undoubtedly, women can influence firm outcomes (Adams, 2016). This research suggests that the apparent bias against women is not just because they are female but from a perceived mismatch between inferred female characteristics and male stereotype leadership requirements.
It is clear from this empirical study that the varying theoretical arguments concerning the identification/development of female characteristics play a distinctive and, in some cases, an individualistic role in determining how women are perceived to act in a managerial role. Some theories imply that gender is a social construct, whilst others, such as neuroeconomic theory, are biologically determined and oppose constructivist approaches. Female traits/characteristics are influenced by culture, society and biology. It is interesting to note from this research that men perceive a greater biological influence on the behaviour of women than women do themselves.
In answering the research question: What qualities do women bring to corporate boards, and how do they differ from men? The research has identified these qualities from the literature and how, in many respects, they differ from the qualities brought to the boardroom by men. These differences result from many influences, as outlined in detail in the paper.
Many of the “positive” responses to the research statements refer to gender stereotype/socialisation issues, such as sensitivity, motherhood, ethics, concern for others and risk aversion. Some, such as hormone influence, sympathy and kindness, may result from biological/neuroscience influences. On the other hand, the “negative” responses refer to leadership issues: leaders in a crisis, new skills and views, deliberation over decision-making, managerial qualities and debating of issues. This clearly shows that gender stereotype theory and gender socialisation theory play an important role in identifying gender perceptions. However, focussing on gender stereotypes results in a biased corporate board gender selection process (Cundiff and Vescio, 2016).
Appreciating the qualities women can bring to corporate boards and the advantages of board gender diversity can also be seen as addressing social injustice. Understanding the underlying influences on gender perceptions may lead to eliminating gender biases and reducing stereotypes.
The findings of this research should help with the policy-making decisions concerning the selection of future corporate board directors and help break down any negative gender selection bias. It is argued in the literature that there are moral, ethical, equality and justice grounds for including more women on corporate boards (Post et al., 2021; Seierstad, 2016). This paper, therefore, adds to the discussion and debate about ethical and moral issues related to business and broader society concerning gender diversity in senior management roles. It also adds to the political debate on the issue of legislative gender initiatives.
Conclusion
This research seeks to empirically identify the various qualities that women can bring to corporate boards. The findings indicate that women are more self-aware of their natural abilities and leadership qualities in bringing fresh ideas and skills to the boardroom, enhancing decision-making and improving firm performance. As men disagree with women on these issues, and as men may act as gatekeepers, women must be allowed to prove themselves.
There is, however, no gender bias in the aspirations of the respondents concerning their desire to seek senior managerial/leadership corporate positions. The increased aspirations of women to seek senior leadership positions may be influenced by improved educational opportunities (Binh, 2016).
Still, gender bias amongst male students may influence the selection of female directors in the future. And whilst these current perceptions may, and invariably will, change over time, it is important to identify them at an early stage in their careers. This research gives a better understanding of the perceived qualities that women bring to corporate boards.
Gender bias may be a result of gender stereotype and socialisation issues, as indicated by the clear linkage between these two theories and the empirical evidence. With more females now entering what were previously male-dominated industries/professions, such as engineering, construction, plumbing, electrical, aviation pilots and even space exploration and males entering professions that were once the sole domain of females, such as midwifery and care, the issues of gender stereotype theory may be changing. Future research should investigate how such changes have influenced gender stereotype theory.
Future research should also look at identifying the reasons for the differences in opinions highlighted in the paper. It would also be beneficial to conduct a similar study focussing on different populations: (1) other countries, e.g. the UK and USA, which are not regulated by the EU gender initiative; gender issues are multinational (Pinheiro et al., 2023), (2) mature MBA students who have some business experience and (3) current corporate directors and business leaders.
Research statements and supporting references
Note(s): Literature references used in developing the various research statements are highlighted at the side of each statement
Source(s): Authors' own elaboration
Analysis of research statements
| Statements | Level of agreement Agree → disagree | Mean | Mode | σ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| RS1 | Women have managerial qualities and skills that are less prevalent in men. (n = 294) | 9 | 110 | 137 | 38 | 2.6939 | 3 | 0.7295 |
| RS2 | Women demonstrate a greater level of sensitivity compared to men. (n = 294) | 67 | 189 | 26 | 12 | 1.9422 | 2 | 0.6901 |
| RS3 | Women are helpful, sympathetic, kind, and genuinely concerned with others' welfare compared to men. (n = 288) | 41 | 150 | 77 | 20 | 2.2639 | 2 | 0.7860 |
| RS4 | There are gender differences in ethical considerations and decision-making in a corporate environment. (n = 289) | 48 | 145 | 67 | 29 | 2.2664 | 2 | 0.8534 |
| RS5 | Women deliberate more over decision-making. (n = 291) | 19 | 70 | 138 | 64 | 2.8488 | 3 | 0.8359 |
| RS6 | Women are more likely to ask questions and debate issues. (n = 291) | 41 | 100 | 111 | 39 | 2.5086 | 3 | 0.8943 |
| RS7 | Women bring new ideas, skills, and views to the boardroom. (n = 287) | 11 | 53 | 163 | 60 | 2.9477 | 3 | 0.7378 |
| RS8 | Women are generally risk-averse. (n = 291) | 26 | 136 | 100 | 29 | 2.4536 | 2 | 0.7911 |
| RS9 | Women are better leaders in a crisis. (n = 290) | 4 | 24 | 160 | 102 | 3.2414 | 3 | 0.6568 |
| RS10 | Women usually belong to informal networks which are not open to men. (n = 289) | 12 | 120 | 129 | 28 | 2.5986 | 3 | 0.7191 |
| RS11 | Men's and women's thinking and behavioural differences in ethical decision-making situations are determined by nature, i.e. hormones that influence the behaviour of both sexes. (n = 292) | 67 | 138 | 66 | 21 | 2.1404 | 2 | 0.8506 |
| RS12 | Some women do not seek board appointments due to family commitments. (n = 291) | 57 | 153 | 63 | 18 | 2.1443 | 2 | 0.7994 |
Note(s): A Likert scale of 1–4 is used, with 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 disagree, and 4 strongly disagree
Source(s): Authors' own elaboration
Analysis of research statements: male vis female
Statements | Male | Female | Difference | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Level of agreement Agree → disagree | Mean | σ | n | Level of agreement Agree → disagree | Mean | σ | t-value | p-value | ||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||||||||
| RS1 | Women have managerial qualities and skills that are less prevalent in men | 201 | 5 | 55 | 108 | 33 | 2.8408 | 0.7155 | 93 | 4 | 55 | 29 | 5 | 2.3763 | 0.6544 | −5.315 | 0.0001* |
| RS2 | Women demonstrate a greater level of sensitivity compared to men | 201 | 37 | 130 | 23 | 11 | 2.0398 | 0.7182 | 93 | 30 | 59 | 3 | 1 | 1.7312 | 0.5706 | −3.645 | 0.0003* |
| RS3 | Women are helpful, sympathetic, kind, and genuinely concerned with others' welfare compared to men | 197 | 16 | 100 | 63 | 18 | 2.4213 | 0.7675 | 91 | 25 | 50 | 14 | 2 | 1.9231 | 0.7145 | −5.232 | 0.0001* |
| RS4 | There are gender differences in ethical considerations and decision-making in a corporate environment | 197 | 21 | 97 | 53 | 26 | 2.4264 | 0.8496 | 92 | 27 | 48 | 14 | 3 | 1.9239 | 0.7552 | −4.848 | 0.0001* |
| RS5 | Women deliberate more over decision-making | 199 | 7 | 35 | 100 | 57 | 3.0402 | 0.7755 | 92 | 12 | 35 | 38 | 7 | 2.4348 | 0.8117 | −6.101 | 0.0001* |
| RS6 | Women are more likely to ask questions and debate issues | 199 | 26 | 60 | 80 | 33 | 2.6030 | 0.9123 | 92 | 15 | 40 | 31 | 6 | 2.3043 | 0.8175 | −2.682 | 0.0078* |
| RS7 | Women bring new ideas, skills, and views to the boardroom | 196 | 4 | 21 | 121 | 50 | 3.1071 | 0.6576 | 91 | 7 | 32 | 42 | 10 | 2.6044 | 0.7828 | −5.665 | 0.0001* |
| RS8 | Women are generally risk-averse | 199 | 21 | 96 | 62 | 20 | 2.4070 | 0.8083 | 92 | 5 | 40 | 38 | 9 | 2.5543 | 0.7426 | 1.482 | 0.1393 |
| RS9 | Women are better leaders in a crisis | 199 | 1 | 1 | 106 | 91 | 3.4422 | 0.5356 | 91 | 3 | 23 | 54 | 11 | 2.8022 | 0.6829 | −8.6360 | 0.0001* |
| RS10 | Women usually belong to informal networks which are not open to men | 198 | 9 | 87 | 87 | 15 | 2.5455 | 0.7003 | 91 | 3 | 33 | 42 | 13 | 2.7143 | 0.7455 | 1.865 | 0.0632** |
| RS11 | Men's and women's thinking and behavioural differences in ethical decision-making situations are determined by nature, i.e. hormones that influence the behaviour of both sexes | 200 | 57 | 89 | 42 | 12 | 2.0450 | 0.8561 | 92 | 10 | 49 | 24 | 9 | 2.3478 | 0.7999 | 2.865 | 0.0045* |
| RS12 | Some women do not seek board appointments due to family commitments | 200 | 33 | 102 | 51 | 14 | 2.2300 | 0.8044 | 91 | 24 | 51 | 12 | 4 | 1.9560 | 0.7546 | −2.746 | 0.0064* |
Note(s): (a) A Likert scale of 1–4 is used, with 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 disagree and 4 strongly disagree. (b) * reject at 0.05; ** reject at 0.10
(b) Italic figures indicate the mode value
Source(s): Authors' own elaboration
Author contributions: Conceptualisation: Frank Lefley. Methodology: Gabriela Trnková, Helena Vychová and Frank Lefley. Questionnaire distribution and feedback: Gabriela Trnková and Helena Vychová. Data analysis: Gabriela Trnková, and Helena Vychová. Writing–original draft: Frank Lefley. Writing–review and editing: Frank Lefley, Gabriela Trnková and Helena Vychová.
Ethics: We confirm that each author has contributed substantially and meaningfully to the article.
Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
References
Adams, R.B. (2016), “Women on boards: the superheroes of tomorrow?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 371-386, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.11.001.
Adams, R.B. and Funk, P. (2012), “Beyond the glass ceiling: does gender matter?”, Management Science, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 219-235, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1452.
Adisa, T.A., Aiyenitaju, O. and Adekoya, O.D. (2021), “The work-family balance of British working women during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Journal of Work-Applied Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 241-260, doi: 10.1108/JWAM-07-2020-0036.
Ahern, K. and Dittmar, A. (2012), “The changing of the boards: the impact on firm Valuation of mandated female board representation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 137-197, doi: 10.1093/qje/qjr049.
Azmat, G. and Boring, A. (2020), “Gender diversity in firms”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 760-782, doi: 10.1093/oxrep/graa043.
Bear, S., Rahman, N. and Post, C. (2010), “The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 207-221, doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2.
Betz, M., O'Connell, L. and Shepard, J.M. (1989), “Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 321-324, doi: 10.1007/BF00381722.
Bilimoria, D. and Wheeler, J.V. (2000), “Women corporate directors: current research and future directions”, Chapter 10, Women in Management: Current Research Issues, Vol. 2, pp. 138-163, doi: 10.4135/9781446219775.n10.
Binh, P.Le (2016), “Leadership aspirations of Asian American academic librarians”, The International Information and Library Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 112-121, doi: 10.1080/10572317.2016.1176452.
Brahma, S., Nwafor, C. and Boateng, A. (2021), “Board gender diversity and firm performance: the U.K. evidence”, International Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 5704-5719, doi: 10.1002/ijfe.2089.
Brass, D.J. (1985), “Men's and women's networks: a study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 327-343, (Published online 30th November 2017), doi: 10.5465/256204.
Brizendine, L. (2007), The Female Brain, Bantam Books, London. 9780553818499.
Calabrese, G.G. and Manello, A. (2021), “Board diversity and performance in a masculine, aged and global supply chain: new empirical evidence”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 1440-1459, doi: 10.1108/CG-09-2020-0417.
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (2005), “Neuroeconomics: how neuroscience can inform economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 9-64, doi: 10.1257/0022051053737843.
Carter, D.A., D'Souza, F., Simkins, B.J. and Simpson, W.J. (2010), “The gender and ethnic diversity of U.S. Boards and board committees and firm financial performance”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 396-414, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00809.x.
Charness, G. and Gneezy, U. (2012), “Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 50-58, doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007.
Chen, M.-Y. and Kao, C.-L. (2021), “Women on boards of directors and firm performance: the mediation of employment downsizing”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 34 No. 13, pp. 1-33, (In Print), doi: 10.1080/09585192.2020.1867617.
Chen, X., Yuan, H., Zheng, T., Chang, Y. and Luo, Y. (2018), “Females are more sensitive to opponent's emotional feedback: evidence from event-related potentials”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Vol. 12, 275. pp. 1-9, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00275.
Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E.A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M. and Ferrari, P.F. (2014), “Empathy: gender effects in brain and behavior”, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 604-627, doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001.
Clason, D.L. and Dormody, T.J. (1994), “Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items”, Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 31-35, doi: 10.5032/jae.1994.04031.
Comi, S., Grasseni, M., Origo, F. and Pagani, L. (2020), “Where women make a difference: gender quotas and firms' performance in three European countries”, ILR Review, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 768-793, doi: 10.1177/0019793919846450.
Croson, R. and Gneezy, U. (2009), “Gender differences in preferences”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 448-474, doi: 10.1257/jel.47.2.448.
Cundiff, J.L. and Vescio, T.K. (2016), “Gender stereotypes influence how people explain gender disparities in the workplace”, Sex Roles, Vol. 75 Nos 3-4, pp. 126-138, doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0593-2.
Cunha, M.J. and Lúcio Martins, R. (2023), “Female journalists who have reached the top: perceptions on communication, leadership, and gender bias in the Portuguese press”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 84-100, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-01-2023-0004.
Deal, J.J. and Stevenson, M.A. (1998), “Perceptions of female and male managers in the 1990s: plus ça change”, Sex Roles, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 287-300, doi: 10.1023/A:1018741318216.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and van Engen, M.L. (2003), “Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 569-591, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569.
Fitzsimmons, S.R. (2012), “Women on boards of directors: why skirts in seats aren't enough”, Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 557-566, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2012.07.003.
Francoeur, C., Labelle, R. and Sinclair-Desgagné, B. (2008), “Gender diversity in corporate governance and top management”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 83-95, doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9482-5.
Garanina, T. and Muravyev, A. (2020), “The gender composition of corporate boards and firm performance: evidence from Russia”, Emerging Markets Review, Vol. 48, 100772, (In Print), doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2020.100772.
Guedes, M.J., Patel, P.C. and Casaca, S.F. (2023), “On the same page? Differences between male and female board members on the benefits of a gender-balanced representation”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 514-533, doi: 10.1108/CG-01-2022-0032.
Hamplová, E., Janecek, V. and Lefley, F. (2022), “Board gender diversity and women in leadership positions – are quotas the solution?”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 742-759, doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-02-2022-0022.
Hassan, R. and Marimuthu, M. (2018), “Contextualizing comprehensive board diversity and firm financial performance: integrating market, management and shareholder's perspective”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 634-678, doi: 10.1017/jmo.218.10.
Heilman, M. and Eagly, A. (2008), “Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 393-398, doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00072.x.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J., Martell, R.F. and Simon, M.C. (1989), “Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 935-942, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.935.
Hillman, A. (2015), “Board diversity: beginning to unpeel the onion”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 104-107, doi: 10.1111/corg.12090.
Hoffman, J.J. (1998), “Are women really more ethical than men? Maybe it depends on the situation”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 60-73, JSTOR, available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604182
Huq, A., Swee, C., Tan, L. and Venugopal, V. (2020), “How do women entrepreneurs strategise growth? An investigation using the social feminist theory lens”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 259-287, doi: 10.1080/00472778.2019.1659679.
Hurley, D. and Choudhary, A. (2020), “Role of gender and corporate risk taking”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 383-399, doi: 10.1108/CG-10-2018-0313.
Ingley, C. and Van der Walt, N. (2005), “Do board processes influence director and board performance? Statutory and performance implications”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 632-653, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00456.x.
Kansaku, K., Yamaura, A. and Kitazawa, S. (2000), “Sex differences in lateralization revealed in the posterior language areas”, Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 10 No. 9, pp. 866-872, doi: 10.1093/cercor/10.9.866.
Katz, D., McIntosh, L. and Lipton, W. (2017), Activism and Board Diversity, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, available at: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/09/29/activism-and-board-diversity/
Kenning, P. and Plassmann, H. (2005), “NeuroEconomics: an overview from an economic perspective”, Brain Research Bulletin, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 343-354, doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2005.07.006.
Labelle, R., Francoeur, C. and Lakhal, F. (2015), “To regulate or not to regulate? Early evidence on the means used around the world to promote gender diversity in the boardroom”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 339-363, doi: 10.1111/gwao.12091.
Lefley, F. (2018), “An exploratory study of team conflict in the capital investment decision-making process”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 960-985, doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-04-2017-0045.
Lefley, F. and Janeček, V. (2023), “Boards gender diversity, quotas, and critical mass theory”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 522-534, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-01-2023-0010.
Liu, C. (2018), “Are women greener? Corporate gender diversity and environmental violations”, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 52 Oct, pp. 118-142, doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.08.004.
Massehgill, D. and Di Marco, N. (1979), “Sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics: a current replication”, Sex Roles, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 561-570, doi: 10.1007/BF02287660.
Matsa, D.A. and Miller, A.R. (2013), “A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 136-169, doi: 10.1257/app.5.3.136.
Maxwell, S., Lee, S., Anselstetter, S., Comer, L.B. and Maxwell, N. (2009), “Gender differences in the response to unfair prices: a cross‐country analysis”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 508-515, doi: 10.1108/07363760911001565.
McGuinness, P.B., Vieito, J.P. and Wang, M. (2020), “Proactive government intervention, board gender balance, and stakeholder engagement in China and Europe”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 719-762, doi: 10.1007/s10490-018-9611-y.
Meng, J. and Neill, M.S. (2023), “Diversifying gender equity in leadership in public relations: the role of mentoring and instrumental support at the organizational level”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 155-168, doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-06-2022-0066.
Niederle, M. and Vesterlund, L. (2007), “Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 122 No. 3, pp. 1067-1101, doi: 10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067.
Nielsen, S. and Huse, M. (2010), “The contribution of women on boards of directors: going beyond the surface”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 138-148, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00784.x.
Ning, E.C.Y. and Karubi, N.P. (2018), “Gender socialisation and its relation to women's work and family conflict”, Trends in Undergraduate Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-18, doi: 10.33736/tur.1179.2018.
Oakley, J.G. (2000), “Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: understanding the scarcity of female CEOs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 321-334, doi: 10.1023/A:1006226129868.
Pinheiro, A.B., do Prado, N.B., Batistella, A.J., Ribeiro, C.D.M.d.A. and Mazzioni, S. (2023), “From zero to Hero: effect of gender diversity on corporate social performance in Brazil”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/IJM-06-2023-0347.
Piscopo, J.M. and Muntean, S.C. (2018), “Corporate quotas and symbolic politics in advanced democracies”, Journal of Women, Politics and Policy, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 285-309, doi: 10.1080/1554477X.2018.1477396.
Post, C., Lokshin, B. and Boone, C. (2021), “Adding women to the c-suite changes how companies think”, Harvard Business Review, April 06, available at: https://hbr.org/2021/04/research-adding-women-to-the-c-suite-changes-how-companies-think
Reguera-Alvarado, N., de Fuentes, P. and Laffarga, J. (2017), “Does board gender diversity influence financial performance? Evidence from Spain”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 141 No. 2, pp. 337-350, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2735-9.
Ryan, L.V. (2017), “Sex differences through a neuroscience lens: implications for business ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 144 No. 4, pp. 771-782, doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3110-1.
Sapienza, P., Zingales, L. and Maestripieri, D. (2009), “Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, Vol. 106 No. 36, pp. 15268-15273, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907352106.
Seierstad, C. (2016), “Beyond the business case: the need for both utility and justice rationales for increasing the share of women on boards”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 390-405, doi: 10.1111/corg.12117.
Smith, P.L. and Oakley, E.F. (1997), “Gender-related differences in ethical and social values of business students: implications for management”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 37-45, doi: 10.1023/A:1017995530951.
St. Claire, L., Silber, L., Royer, R., Wong, J. and Bond, C.A. (2016), “Braving the financial crisis: an empirical analysis of the effect of female board directors on bank holding company performance”, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Economics Working Paper 2016-1 June 2016, available at: https://www.occ.gov/publications-and-resources/publications/economics/working-papers-archived/economic-working-paper-2016-1.html
Tench, R., Topić, M. and Moreno, Á. (2017), “Male and female communication, leadership styles and the position of women in public relations”, Interactions: Studies in Communication and Culture, Vol. 8 Nos 2 and 3, pp. 231-248, doi:10.1386/iscc.8.2-3.231-1.
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R. and Singh, V. (2009), “Women directors on corporate boards: a review and research agenda”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 320-337, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.x.
Terjesen, S., Couto, E.B. and Francisco, P.M. (2016), “Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 447-483, doi: 10.1007/s10997-014-9307-8.
Thiruvadi, S. and Huang, H. (2011), “Audit committee gender differences and earnings management”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 483-498, doi: 10.1108/17542411111175469.
Triana, M.D.C., Miller, T.L. and Trzebiatowski, T.M. (2014), “The double-edged nature of board gender diversity: diversity, firm performance, and the power of women directors as predictors of strategic change”, Organization Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 609-632, doi: 10.1287/orsc.2013.0842.
Zenger, J. and Folkman, J. (2019), “Women score higher than men in most leadership skills”, Harvard Business Review, June 25, available at: https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-women-score-higher-than-men-in-most-leadership-skills
Zenger, J. and Folkman, J. (2020), “Gender: research: women are better leaders during a crisis”, Harvard Business Review, 30th December, available at: https://hbr.org/2020/12/research-women-are-better-leaders-during-a-crisis
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the internal project SPEV – Economic Impacts under the Industry 4.0/Society 5.0 Concept, 2023, University of Hradec Králové, Faculty of Informatics and Management, Czech Republic. The authors acknowledge the support of the student Thomas Sitzberger, who collaborated on data processing.
Corresponding author
About the authors
Frank Lefley is Honorary Research Professor at the University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. He received a MSc in management systems and sciences from the University of Hull, a MPhil in accounting and financial management from the University of Buckingham and a PhD in finance and economics from the University of London (having studied at both Imperial College and Royal Holloway College–where he was a Hon. Research Fellow for ten years). His research has been published in several leading journals, including Management Research Review, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, International Journal of Production Research, International Journal of Production Economics, The Engineering Economist, Management Decision and Corporate Communications: An International Journal.
Gabriela Trnková is Assistant Professor (Economics) at the Faculty of Informatics and Management at the University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. She received her PhD, a Master and a Bachelor's degree from the Czech University of Life Science, Prague. Her research interests include economics of agricultural and food processing business, focusing on efficiency and productivity analysis, financial analysis, entrepreneurship and SMEs in the Czech Republic, agricultural policy and rural development and gender diversity.
Helena Vychová is Assistant Professor at the Department of Economics, Faculty of Informatics and Management at the University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. She received her doctorate at the University of Economics in Prague. Her professional interests are microeconomics, macroeconomics, the behaviour of market entities, employment and unemployment and gender diversity.