Evaluating Board Candidates: A Threat-Contingency Model of Shareholder Dissent Against Female Director Candidates

References

• Adams RB, Ferreira D (2007) A theory of friendly boards. J. Finance 62(1):217–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adams RB, Ferreira D (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. J. Financial Econom. 94(2):291–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agarwal S, Qian W, Reeb DM, Sing TF (2016) Playing the boys game: Golf buddies and board diversity. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(5):272–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aggarwal R, Dahiya S, Prabhala NR (2019) The power of shareholder votes: Evidence from uncontested director elections. J. Financial Econom. 133(1):134–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguilera RV, Rupp DE, Williams CA, Ganapathi J (2007) Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 32(3):836–863.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, Glavas A (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. J. Management 38(4):932–968.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, Edwards JR, Bradley KJ (2017) Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic management research. Organ. Res. Methods 20(4):665–685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alam ZS, Chen MA, Ciccotello CS, Ryan HE (2018) Board structure mandates: Consequences for director location and financial reporting. Management Sci. 64(10):4735–4754.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson D, Bjarnadóttir MV, Dezső CL, Ross DG (2019) On a firm’s optimal response to pressure for gender pay equity. Organ. Sci. 30(1):214–231.Link, Google Scholar
• Antonakis J, Bendahan S, Jacquart P, Lalive R (2010) On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quart. 21(6):1086–1120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aouadi A, Marsat S (2018) Do ESG controversies matter for firm value? Evidence from international data. J. Bus. Ethics 151(4):1027–1047.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Bracha A, Meier S (2009) Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(1):544–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldenius T, Meng X, Qiu L (2019) Biased boards. Accounting Rev. 94(2):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baloria VP, Heese J (2018) The effects of media slant on firm behavior. J. Financial Econom. 129(1):184–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beckman CM, Haunschild PR, Phillips DJ (2004) Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organ. Sci. 15(3):259–275.Link, Google Scholar
• Bednar MK, Boivie S, Prince NR (2013) Burr under the saddle: How media coverage influences strategic change. Organ. Sci. 24(3):910–925.Link, Google Scholar
• Bitektine A, Haack P (2014) The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Acad. Management Rev. 40(1):49–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boivie S, Graffin SD, Pollock TG (2012) Time for me to fly: Predicting director exit at large firms. Acad. Management J. 55(6):1334–1359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boivie S, Bednar MK, Aguilera RV, Andrus JL (2016) Are boards designed to fail? The implausibility of effective board monitoring. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):319–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bongiorno R, Bain PG, David B (2014) If you’re going to be a leader, at least act like it! Prejudice toward women who are tentative in leader roles. British J. Soc. Psych. 53(2):217–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Botelho TL, Abraham M (2017) Pursuing quality: How search costs and uncertainty magnify gender-based double standards in a multistage evaluation process. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(4):698–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowles HR, Gelfand M (2010) Status and the evaluation of workplace deviance. Psych. Sci. 21(1):49–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brescoll VL, Dawson E, Uhlmann EL (2010) Hard won and easily lost: The fragile status of leaders in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psych. Sci. 21(11):1640–1642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brewer MB (1979) In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psych. Bull. 86(2):307–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brinkhuis E, Scholtens B (2018) Investor response to appointment of female CEOs and CFOs. Leadership Quart. 29(3):423–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown JA, Anderson A, Salas JM, Ward AJ (2017) Do investors care about director tenure? Insights from executive cognition and social capital theories. Organ. Sci. 28(3):471–494.Link, Google Scholar
• Bushway S, Johnson BD, Slocum LA (2007) Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. J. Quant. Criminology 23(2):151–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Business Roundtable (2019) Business roundtable redefines the purpose of a corporation to promote “An economy that serves all Americans.” Accessed August 19, 2019, https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans.Google Scholar
• Byron K, Post C (2016) Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance 24(4):428–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cai J, Garner JL, Walkling RA (2009) Electing directors. J. Finance 64(5):2389–2421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Miller DL (2015) A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. J. Human Resources 50(2):317–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Matthews PH (2009) What norms trigger punishment? Experiment. Econom. 12(3):272–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carter DA, Simkins BJ, Simpson WG (2003) Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Rev. 38(1):33–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Certo ST, Busenbark JR, Woo HS, Semadeni M (2016) Sample selection bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management J. 37(13):2639–2657.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chang EH, Milkman KL, Chugh D, Akinola M (2018) Diversity thresholds: How social norms, visibility, and scrutiny relate to group composition. Acad. Management J. 62(1):144–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chatman CM, von Hippel W (2001) Attributional mediation of in-group bias. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 37(3):267–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay P (2003) Can dissimilarity lead to positive outcomes? The influence of open vs. closed minds. J. Organ. Behav. 24(3):295–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay P, Tluchowska M, George E (2004) Identifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Acad. Management Rev. 29(2):180–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen J, Leung WS, Goergen M (2017) The impact of board gender composition on dividend payouts. J. Corporate Finance 43(Suppl. C):86–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi SJ, Fisch JE, Kahan M, Rock EB (2016) Does majority voting improve board accountability? Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 83:1119–1180.Google Scholar
• Clougherty JA, Duso T, Muck J (2016) Correcting for self-selection based endogeneity in management research: Review, recommendations and simulations. Organ. Res. Methods 19(2):286–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. (Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
• Colvin G (2015) The trait that makes women great leaders. Fortune Online (March 26), http://fortune.com/2015/03/26/the-trait-that-makes-women-great-leaders/.Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Certo ST, Ireland RD, Reutzel CR (2011) Signaling theory: A review and assessment. J. Management 37(1):39–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conyon M, Sadler G (2010) Shareholder voting and directors’ remuneration report legislation: Say on pay in the UK. Corporate Governance 18(4):296–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook A, Glass C (2013) Glass cliffs and organizational saviors: Barriers to minority leadership in work organizations? Soc. Problems 60(2):168–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook A, Glass C (2018) Women on corporate boards: Do they advance corporate social responsibility? Human Relations 71(7):897–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Credit Suisse (2012) Gender diversity and corporate performance. Accessed July 31, https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us-news/en/articles/media-releases/42035-201207.html.Google Scholar
• Cunat V, Gine M, Guadalupe M (2016) Say pays! Shareholder voice and firm performance. Rev. Finance 20(5):1799–1834.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalton DR, Daily CM, Ellstrand AE, Johnson JL (1998) Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management J. 19(3):269–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deephouse DL, Carter SM (2005) An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. J. Management Stud. 42(2):329–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Del Guercio D, Seery L, Woidtke T (2008) Do boards pay attention when institutional investor activists “just vote no”? J. Financial Econom. 90(1):84–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dezső CL, Ross DG, Uribe J (2016) Is there an implicit quota on women in top management? A large-sample statistical analysis. Strategic Management J. 37(1):98–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 48(2):147–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dobbin F, Jung J (2011) Corporate board gender diversity and stock performance: The competence gap or institutional investor bias board diversity and corporate performance filling in the gaps. North Carolina Law Rev. 89(3):809–840.Google Scholar
• Dobbin F, Kalev A (2017) Are diversity programs merely ceremonial? Evidence-free institutionalization. Royston G, Oliver C, Lawrence TB, Meyer RE, eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage, London), 808–828.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doh JP, Howton SD, Howton SW, Siegel DS (2010) Does the market respond to an endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information, and legitimacy. J. Management 36(6):1461–1485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durand R, Paugam L, Stolowy H (2019) Do investors actually value sustainability indices? Replication, development, and new evidence on CSR visibility. Strategic Management J. 40(9):1471–1490.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duguid M (2011) Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 116(1):104–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duguid MM, Loyd DL, Tolbert PS (2010) The impact of categorical status, numeric representation, and work group prestige on preference for demographically similar others: A value threat approach. Organ. Sci. 23(2):386–401.Link, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH (2016) When passionate advocates meet research on diversity, does the honest broker stand a chance? J. Soc. Issues 72(1):199–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Economist Intelligence Unit (2014) Women in focus: Gender diversity and socially responsible investing. Accessed September 23, https://www.investmentbank.barclays.com/content/dam/barclaysmicrosites/ibpublic/documents/investment-bank/global-insights/women-in-focus-gender-diversity-and-socially-responsible-investing-2.4mb.pdf.Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Oesch D (2015) Does the director election system matter? Evidence from majority voting. Rev. Accounting Stud. 20(1):1–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Oesch D (2018) Understanding uncontested director elections. Management Sci. 64(7):3400–3420.Link, Google Scholar
• Everly BA, Schwarz JL (2015) Predictors of the adoption of LGBT-friendly HR policies. Human Resources Management 54(2):367–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falato A, Kadyrzhanova D, Lel U (2014) Distracted directors: Does board busyness hurt shareholder value? J. Financial Econom. 113(3):404–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Mateo I, Kaplan S (2018) Gender and organization science: Introduction to a virtual special issue. Organ. Sci. 29(6):1229–1236.Link, Google Scholar
• Fischer PE, Gramlich JD, Miller BP, White HD (2009) Investor perceptions of board performance: Evidence from uncontested director elections. J. Accounting Econom. 48(2):172–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flammer C (2013) Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Acad. Management J. 56(3):758–781.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fredrickson JW, Davis-Blake A, Sanders WMG (2010) Sharing the wealth: Social comparisons and pay dispersion in the CEO’s top team. Strategic Management J. 31(10):1031–1053.Crossref, Google Scholar
• García Lara JM, García Osma B, Mora A, Scapin M (2017) The monitoring role of female directors over accounting quality. J. Corporate Finance 45(Suppl. C):651–668.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glac K (2009) Understanding socially responsible investing: The effect of decision frames and trade-off options. J. Bus. Ethics 87(1):41–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Godfrey PC, Merrill CB, Hansen JM (2009) The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management J. 30(4):425–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green J (2019) New women directors set records with few gains to show for it. Bloomberg Online (May 29), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-29/new-women-directors-set-records-with-few-gains-to-show-for-it.Google Scholar
• Groysberg B, Bell D (2013) Dysfunction in the boardroom. Harvard Bus. Rev. 91(6):88–97.Google Scholar
• Grundfest J (2003) Advice and Consent: An Alternative Mechanism for Shareholder Participation in the Nomination and Election of Corporate Directors (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY).Google Scholar
• Guillén MF, Capron L (2016) State capacity, minority shareholder protections, and stock market development. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(1):125–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guldiken O, Mallon MR, Fainshmidt S, Judge WQ, Clark CE (2019) Beyond tokenism: How strategic leaders influence more meaningful gender diversity on boards of directors. Strategic Management J. 40(12):2024–2046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta VK, Han S, Mortal SC, Silveri SD, Turban DB (2017) Do women CEOs face greater threat of shareholder activism compared with male CEOs? A role congruity perspective. J. Appl. Psych. 103(2):228–236.Google Scholar
• Haines EL, Deaux K, Lofaro N (2016) The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psych. Women Quart. 40(3):353–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison JS, Boivie S, Sharp NY, Gentry RJ (2018) Saving face: How exit in response to negative press and star analyst downgrades reflects reputation maintenance by directors. Acad. Management J. 61(3):1131–1157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hawn O, Ioannou I (2016) Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management J. 37(13):2569–2588.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hawn O, Chatterji AK, Mitchell W (2018) Do investors actually value sustainability? New evidence from investor reactions to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). Strategic Management J. 39(4):949–976.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME (2012) Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 32:113–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hewstone M (1990) The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 20(4):311–335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman A, Shropshire C, Cannella A (2007) Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Acad. Management J. 50(4):941–952.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ, Shropshire C, Certo ST, Dalton DR, Dalton CM (2011) What I like about you: A multilevel study of shareholder discontent with director monitoring. Organ. Sci. 22(3):675–687.Link, Google Scholar
• Hoffman L (2014) Longitudinal Analysis: Modeling Within-Person Fluctuation and Change (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Holger D (2019) The business case for more diversity. Wall Street Journal Online (October 26), https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-business-case-for-more-diversity-11572091200.Google Scholar
• Hong H, Kubik JD, Solomon A (2000) Security analysts’ career concerns and herding of earnings forecasts. RAND J. Econom. 31(1):121–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoobler JM, Wayne SJ, Lemmon G (2009) Bosses’ perceptions of family-work conflict and women’s promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Acad. Management J. 52(5):939–957.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu T (2012) Women on board: Firms with female directors do better, study says. Los Angeles Times Online (August 1), http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-women-board-performance-20120801-story.html.Google Scholar
• Hwang S, Shivdasani A, Simintzi E (2019) Mandating Women on Boards: Evidence from the United States (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC).Google Scholar
• Iacobucci D (2012) Mediation analysis and categorical variables: The final frontier. J. Consumer Psych. 22(4):582–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2015) The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management J. 36(7):1053–1081.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson SK, Murphy SE, Zewdie S, Reichard RJ (2008) The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 106(1):39–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kang J (2013) The relationship between corporate diversification and corporate social performance. Strategic Management J. 34(1):94–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerr J, Bettis RA (1987) Boards of directors, top management compensation, and shareholder returns. Acad. Management J. 30(4):645–664.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleibergen F, Paap R (2006) Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value decomposition. J. Econometrics 133(1):97–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knippen JM, Shen W, Zhu Q (2019) Limited progress? The effect of external pressure for board gender diversity on the increase of female directors. Strategic Management J. 40(7):1123–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knyazeva A, Knyazeva D, Masulis RW (2013) The supply of corporate directors and board independence. Rev. Financial Stud. 26(6):1561–1605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Colomer J, Belinky M (2014) Structural equality at the top of the corporation: Mandated quotas for women directors. Strategic Management J. 35(6):891–902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kölbel JF, Busch T, Jancso LM (2017) How media coverage of corporate social irresponsibility increases financial risk. Strategic Management J. 38(11):2266–2284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konner M (2015) A better world, run by women: Male biology has brought the world war, corruption and scandal. Women are poised to lead us to a better place. Wall Street Journal Online (March 6), http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-better-world-run-by-women-1425657910.Google Scholar
• Kouchaki M, Smith-Crowe K, Brief AP, Sousa C (2013) Seeing green: Mere exposure to money triggers a business decision frame and unethical outcomes. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 121(1):53–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Landy D, Aronson E (1969) The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 5(2):141–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laverty KJ (1996) Economic “short-termism”: The debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Acad. Management Rev. 21(3):825–860.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee GK, Paruchuri S (2008) Entry into emergent and uncertain product-markets: The role of associative rhetoric. Acad. Management J. 51(6):1171–1188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee PM, James EH (2007) She’-E-Os: Gender effects and investor reactions to the announcements of top executive appointments. Strategic Management J. 28(3):227–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levi M, Li K, Zhang F (2014) Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. J. Corporate Finance 28(Suppl. C):185–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Licht AN, Goldschmidt C, Schwartz SH (2007) Culture rules: The foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance. J. Comparative Econom. 35(4):659–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lim ENK, McCann BT (2013) Performance feedback and firm risk taking: The moderating effects of CEO and outside director stock options. Organ. Sci. 25(1):262–282.Link, Google Scholar
• Little LM, Shropshire C, Hoffman BJ, Burgess LR (2017) The double-edged nature of narcissism and imposter syndrome in organizations. Acad. Management Proc. 2017(1):15340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lord RG, Brown DJ, Harvey JL, Hall RJ (2001) Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. Leadership Quart. 12(3):311–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyness KS, Grotto AR (2018) Women and leadership in the United States: Are we closing the gender gap? Annual Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 5(1):227–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ma J, Khanna T (2016) Independent directors’ dissent on boards: Evidence from listed companies in China. Strategic Management J. 37(8):1547–1557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Macrae CN, Bodenhausen GV (2000) Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Rev. Psych. 51:93–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makadok R (2003) Doing the right thing and knowing the right thing to do: Why the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Strategic Management J. 24(10):1043–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mannor MJ, Wowak AJ, Bartkus VO, Gomez‐Mejia LR (2016) Heavy lies the crown? How job anxiety affects top executive decision making in gain and loss contexts. Strategic Management J. 37(9):1968–1989.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masulis RW, Mobbs S (2014) Independent director incentives: Where do talented directors spend their limited time and energy? J. Financial Econom. 111(2):406–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matta E, Beamish PW (2008) The accentuated CEO career horizon problem: Evidence from international acquisitions. Strategic Management J. 29(7):683–700.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonald ML, Westphal JD (2013) Access denied: Low mentoring of women and minority first-time directors and its negative effects on appointments to additional boards. Acad. Management J. 56(4):1169–1198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKinsey (2013) Gender diversity in top management: Moving corporate culture, moving boundaries. Accessed October 1, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/women-matter-2013.Google Scholar
• Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociol. 83(2):340–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller T, Triana MDC (2009) Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. J. Management Stud. 46(5):755–786.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Naquin CE, Tynan RO (2003) The team halo effect: Why teams are not blamed for their failures. J. Appl. Psych. 88(2):332–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Naumovska I, Wernicke G, Zajac E (2020) Last to come and last to go? On the complex role of gender and ethnicity in the reputational penalties for directors linked to corporate fraud. Acad. Management J. 63(3):881–902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neville F, Byron K, Post C, Ward A (2018) Board independence and corporate misconduct: A cross-national meta-analysis. J. Management 45(6):2538–2569.Google Scholar
• Nyberg AJ, Fulmer IS, Gerhart B, Carpenter MA (2010) Agency theory revisited: CEO return and shareholder interest alignment. Acad. Management J. 53(5):1029–1049.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oliver AG, Krause R, Busenbark JR, Kalm M (2018) BS in the boardroom: Benevolent sexism and board chair orientations. Strategic Management J. 39(1):113–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paluck EL, Green DP (2009) Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Rev. Psych. 60(1):339–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park SH, Westphal JD (2013) Social discrimination in the corporate elite: How status affects the propensity for minority CEOs to receive blame for low firm performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(4):542–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perrault E (2015) Why does board gender diversity matter and how do we get there? The role of shareholder activism in deinstitutionalizing old boys’ networks. J. Bus. Ethics 128(1):149–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettigrew TF (1979) The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 5(4):461–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Post C, Latu IM, Belkin LY (2019) A female leadership trust advantage in times of crisis: Under what conditions? Psych. Women Quart. 43(2):215–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell GN, Greenhaus JH (2010) Sex, gender, and decisions at the family → work interface. J. Management 36(4):1011–1039.Google Scholar
• Prato M, Kypraios E, Ertug G, Lee YG (2018) Middle-status conformity revisited: The interplay between achieved and ascribed status. Acad. Management J. 62(4):1003–1027.Crossref, Google Scholar
• PricewaterhouseCoopers (2016) PwC’s 2016 Annual Corporate Directors Survey (PricewaterhouseCoopers, New York).Google Scholar
• Roese NJ, Olson JM (1993) The structure of counterfactual thought. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 19(3):312–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rowley TJ, Moldoveanu M (2003) When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Acad. Management Rev. 28(2):204–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryan MK, Haslam SA, Hersby MD, Bongiorno R (2011) Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype. J. Appl. Psych. 96(3):470–484.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryan MK, Haslam SA, Morgenroth T, Rink F, Stoker J, Peters K (2016) Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact. Leadership Quart. 27(3):446–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauerwald S, van Oosterhout JH, van Essen M (2016) Expressive shareholder democracy: A multilevel study of shareholder dissent in 15 Western European countries. J. Management Stud. 53(4):520–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauerwald S, van Oosterhout JH, van Essen M, Peng MW (2018) Proxy advisors and shareholder dissent: A cross-country comparative study. J. Management 44(8):3364–3394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sealy R, Doldor E, Vinnicombe S (2016) Female FTSE Report 2016—Women on Boards: Taking Stock of Where We Are (Cranfield University School of Management, Cranfield, UK).Google Scholar
• Semadeni M, Withers MC, Certo ST (2014) The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations. Strategic Management J. 35(7):1070–1079.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaver JM (1998) Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Sci. 44(4):571–585.Link, Google Scholar
• Shi W, Connelly BL, Cirik K (2018) Short seller influence on firm growth: A threat rigidity perspective. Acad. Management J. 61(5):1892–1919.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slawinski N, Bansal P (2015) Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organ. Sci. 26(2):531–549.Link, Google Scholar
• Sobel ME (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol. Methodology 13:290–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sojo VE, Wood RE, Wood SA, Wheeler MA (2016) Reporting requirements, targets, and quotas for women in leadership. Leadership Quart. 27(3):519–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Solal I, Snellman K (2019) Women don’t mean business? Gender penalty in board composition. Organ. Sci. 30(6):1270–1288.Link, Google Scholar
• Spiller SA, Fitzsimons GJ, Lynch JG, McClelland GH (2013) Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. J. Marketing Res. 50(2):277–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Staw BM, Sandelands LE, Dutton JE (1981) Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Admin. Sci. Quart. 26(4):501–524.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stern I, Westphal JD (2010) Stealthy footsteps to the boardroom: Executives’ backgrounds, sophisticated interpersonal influence behavior, and board appointments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(2):278–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stock JH, Yogo M (2005) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Andrews DWK, Stock JH, eds. Identification and Inference for Economic Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg (Cambridge University Press, New York), 80–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Su W, Sauerwald S (2018) Does corporate philanthropy increase firm value? The moderating role of corporate governance. Bus. Soc. 57(4):599–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suchman M (1995) Managing legitimacy—Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Management Rev. 20(3):571–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suddaby R, Greenwood R (2005) Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(1):35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Rev. Psych. 33(1):1–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tatlow DK (2014) More women on company boards reduces fraud. New York Times Online (April 4), https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/more-women-on-company-boards-reduces-fraud-study-finds/.Google Scholar
• Tenbrunsel AE, Wade-Benzoni KA, Messick DM, Bazerman MH (2000) Understanding the influence of environmental standards on judgments and choices. Acad. Management J. 43(5):854–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Terjesen S, Aguilera RV, Lorenz R (2015) Legislating a woman’s seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors. J. Bus. Ethics 128(2):233–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thomson Reuters (2019) Thomson Reuters ESG Scores (Thomson Reuters, Toronto).Google Scholar
• Tolbert P, Zucker L (1983) Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Admin. Sci. Quart. 28(1):22–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Torchia M, Calabrò A, Huse M (2011) Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. J. Bus. Ethics 102(2):299–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Triana MDC, Miller TL, Trzebiatowski TM (2014) The double-edged nature of board gender diversity: Diversity, firm performance, and the power of women directors as predictors of strategic change. Organ. Sci. 25(2):609–632.Link, Google Scholar
• Turban DB, Greening DW (1997) Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Acad. Management J. 40(3):658–672.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vohs KD, Mead NL, Goode MR (2008) Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 17(3):208–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waldron TL, Navis C, Karam EP, Markman GD (2019) Toward a theory of activist-driven responsible innovation: How activists pressure firms to adopt more responsible practices. J. Management Stud, ePub ahead of print.Google Scholar
• Wang H, Qian C (2011) Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Acad. Management J. 54(6):1159–1181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Stern I (2006) The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(2):169–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Stern I (2007) Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a male caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic minority status affect additional board appointments at U.S. companies. Acad. Management J. 50(2):267–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams CL, Kilanski K, Muller C (2014) Corporate diversity programs and gender inequality in the oil and gas industry. Work Occupations 41(4):440–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolfolds SE, Siegel J (2019) Misaccounting for endogeneity: The peril of relying on the Heckman two-step method without a valid instrument. Strategic Management J. 40(3):432–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wong PT, Weiner B (1981) When people ask “why” questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 40(4):650–663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zajac EJ, Westphal JD (2004) The social construction of market value: Institutionalization and learning perspectives on stock market reactions. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 69(3):433–457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhou J, Shin SJ, Cannella AA Jr (2008) Employee self-perceived creativity after mergers and acquisitions: Interactive effects of threat-opportunity perception, access to resources, and support for creativity. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 44(4):397–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zultan R, Gerstenberg T, Lagnado DA (2012) Finding fault: Causality and counterfactuals in group attributions. Cognition 125(3):429–440.Crossref, Google Scholar