Search results

This study aims to unpack the progress of board gender diversity among the 3,000 largest US listed firms by market capitalization (i.e. Russell 3000 Index). This study extrapolates four classifications of firms based on the number of women in the boardroom: zero women, one or two women, three plus women and gender balanced. The purpose of this study is to examine where progress has and has not been made, why firms plateau and an agenda for the future.

This study first provides a summative overview of the literature on the benefits of board gender diversity. It then examines progress according to the four classifications, each of which have theoretical underpinnings for whether or not firms can reap the strategic benefits of gender-diverse boardrooms.

Several indices of US publicly traded companies now have women holding between 30% and 33% of the seats in the boardroom. By examining the spread of women on boards according to the four classifications, this study extrapolates three key insights: firms experiencing tokenism (i.e. one or two women in the boardroom) do not have enough women to reap the strategic benefits of diverse boardrooms; firms that have reached a critical mass (three women in the boardroom) are at an impasse and may risk plateauing; and gender-balanced firms are elevated to the status of being role models for other firms. Calls for action and associated action plans accompany these insights.

This study reminds managers and directors of the strategic benefits of gender-diverse boards and offers three critical insights that boards can use to classify what stage they are at on the path toward board gender equality. Based on their classification, calls for action and action plans offer guidance to firms.

This study shifts away from focusing on the average percentage of board seats held by women across all firms and offers new insights on the progress that firms have made according to the number of women in their boardroom.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of the target firm’s high-tech status on the share of ownership decision in cross-border acquisitions (CBAs), which is an under-explored topic in cross-border M&A literature.

The authors used Tobit regression and tested the hypotheses using a sample of 7,011 CBA transactions between 1999 and 2014. Inverse Mills ratio was used to address selection bias, and various robustness tests were performed.

The authors found that acquirers seek greater ownership share when acquiring high-tech firms, and that this relationship is moderated by various firm and national level factors. Specifically, the positive relationship between the high-tech status of a target firm and ownership share acquired is stronger when the firms’ primary operations are highly related or there is high formal institutional distance between the firms’ home countries, but it is weaker when acquirers have more prior M&A experience or there is high cultural and geographic distance between the firms’ home countries.

While the topic of ownership strategy in CBAs is advancing, it is still limited, especially when examining acquisitions of high-tech target firms. The authors contribute to the research on CBAs and ownership strategy by focusing on the high-tech status of the target firm, and using a sample of both private and public target firms from 116 countries.