Managing the Double Bind: Women Directors’ Participation Tactics in the Gendered Boardroom

References

• Acker J (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender Soc. 4(2):139–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Acker J (2012) Gendered organizations and intersectionality: Problems and possibilities. Equality Diversity Inclusion 31(3):214–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adams RB, Funk P (2012) Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter? Management Sci. 58(2):219–235.Link, Google Scholar
• Allport GW (1954) The Nature of Prejudice (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Amanatullah ET, Morris MW (2010) Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 98(2):256–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ayman R, Korabik K (2010) Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. Amer. Psychologist 65(3):157–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barlow J (2021) Board of directors vs. management: What is the difference? BoardEffect, June 16, https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/board-of-directors-vs-management/.Google Scholar
• Barrick MR, Shaffer JA, DeGrassi SW (2009) What you see may not be what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. J. Appl. Psych. 94(6):1394–1411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bergen N, Labonté R (2020) “Everything is perfect, and we have no problems”: Detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Res. 30(5):783–792.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beutel AM, Marini MM (1995) Gender and values. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 60(3):436–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bilimoria D (2000) Building the business case for women corporate directors. Burke RJ, Mattis MC, eds. Women on Corporate Boards of Directors (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands), 25–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bilimoria D, Huse M (1997) A qualitative comparison of the boardroom experiences of US and Norwegian women corporate directors. Internat. Rev. Women Leadership 3(2):63–73.Google Scholar
• Bowles HR, Flynn F (2010) Gender and persistence in negotiation: A dyadic perspective. Acad. Management J. 53(4):769–787.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burrell G, Morgan G (2017) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life (Routledge, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cardador MT (2017) Promoted up but also out? The unintended consequences of increasing women’s representation in managerial roles in engineering. Organ. Sci. 28(4):597–617.Link, Google Scholar
• Cardador MT, Hill PL, Salles A (2021) Unpacking the status-leveling burden for women in male-dominated occupations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(1):237–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catalyst (2017) 2016 Catalyst census: Women and men board directors. Report, August 22, https://www.catalyst.org/research/2016-catalyst-census-women-and-men-board-directors/.Google Scholar
• Catalyst (2021) Quick take: Women on corporate boards. Report, November 5, https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-on-corporate-boards/.Google Scholar
• Cha SE, Roberts LM (2019) Leveraging minority identities at work: An individual-level framework of the identity mobilization process. Organ. Sci. 30(4):735–760.Link, Google Scholar
• Charmaz K (2017) The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry 23(1):34–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conyon M, Judge WQ, Useem M (2011) Corporate governance and the 2008–09 financial crisis. Corporate Governance 19(5):399–404.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed. (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cuddy AJ, Glick P, Beninger A (2011) The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 31:73–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC (2001) The leadership styles of women and men. J. Soc. Issues 57(4):781–797.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Johnson BT (1990) Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 108(2):233–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Karau SJ (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psych. Rev. 109(3):573–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Karau SJ, Makhijani MG (1995) Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 117(1):125–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elstad B, Ladegard G (2012) Women on corporate boards: Key influencers or tokens? J. Management Governance 16(4):595–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ely R, Padavic I (2007) A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Acad. Management Rev. 32(4):1121–1143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farh CIC, Oh JK, Hollenbeck JR, Yu A, Lee SM, King DD (2020) Token female voice enactment in traditionally male-dominated teams: Facilitating conditions and consequences for performance. Acad. Management J. 63(3):832–856.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
• Ferris GR, Adams G, Kolodinsky RW, Hochwarter WA, Ammeter AP (2002) Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. Yammarino FJ, Dansereau F, eds. The Many Faces of Multi-level Issues (Emerald, Bingley, UK), 179–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ, Ames DR (2006) What’s good for the goose may not be as good for the gander: The benefits of self-monitoring for men and women in task groups and dyadic conflicts. J. Appl. Psych. 91(2):272–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forbes DP, Milliken FJ (1999) Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Acad. Management Rev. 24(3):489–505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gabaldon P, de Anca C, de Cabo RM, Gimeno R (2016) Searching for women on boards: An analysis from the supply and demand perspective. Corporate Governance 24(3):371–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gallucci C, Santulli R, Tipaldi R (2020) Women on bank boards and risk-taking: A cross-countries analysis on the moderating role of masculinity. Corporate Ownership Control 17(3):71–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gephart RP (2018) Qualitative research as interpretive social science. Cassell C, Cunliffe AL, Grandy G, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 33–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golden BR (1992) The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Acad. Management J. 35(4):848–860.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grodal S, Anteby M, Holm AL (2020) Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. Acad. Management Rev. 46(3):591–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guadagno RE, Cialdini RB (2007) Gender differences in impression management in organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles 56(7–8):483–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP (1998) Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad. Management J. 41(1):96–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Acad. Management J. 45(5):1029–1045.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME (2012) Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 32:113–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME, Okimoto TG (2007) Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. J. Appl. Psych. 92(1):81–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF, Simon MC (1989) Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. J. Appl. Psych. 74(6):935.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM (2004) Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J. Appl. Psych. 89(3):416–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoobler JM, Masterson CR, Nkomo SM, Michel EJ (2018) The business case for women leaders: Meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward. J. Management 44(6):2473–2499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huse M, Solberg AG (2006) Gender-related boardroom dynamics: How Scandinavian women make and can make contributions on corporate boards. Women Management Rev. 21(2):113–130.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
• Kanter RM (1993) Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Keplinger K, Johnson SK, Kirk JF, Barnes LY (2019) Women at work: Changes in sexual harassment between September 2016 and September 2018. PLoS One 14(7):e0218313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirsch A (2018) The gender composition of corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quart. 29(2):346–364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koenig AM, Eagly AH, Mitchell AA, Ristikari T (2011) Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psych. Bull. 137(4):616–642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konrad AM, Kramer V, Erkut S (2008) The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organ. Dynam. 37(2):145–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koppman S, Bechky BA, Cohen AC (2021) Overcoming conflict between symmetric occupations: How “creatives” and “suits” use gender ordering in advertising. Acad. Management J., ePub ahead of print July 8, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.0806.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kramer VW, Konrad AM, Erkut S, Hooper MJ (2007) Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance (National Association of Corporate Directors Directors Monthly, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Kudret S, Erdogan B, Bauer TN (2019) Self-monitoring personality trait at work: An integrative narrative review and future research directions. J. Organ. Behav. 40(2):193–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lincoln YS, Lynham SA, Guba EG (2011) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 97–128.Google Scholar
• Locke K, Feldman M, Golden-Biddle K (2020) Coding practices and iterativity: Beyond templates for analyzing qualitative data. Organ. Res. Methods 25(2):262–284.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. 5:227–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McClean EJ, Martin SR, Emich KJ, Woodruff CT (2018) The social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. Acad. Management J. 61(5):1869–1891.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGregor J (2013) The boardroom is still an old boy’s club. Washington Post (September 25), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2013/09/25/corporate-boardrooms-are-still-old-boys-clubs/.Google Scholar
• Meister A, Sinclair A, Jehn KA (2017) Identities under scrutiny: How women leaders navigate feeling misidentified at work. Leadership Quart. 28(5):672–690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mensi-Klarbach H (2014) Gender in top management research: Towards a comprehensive research framework. Management Res. Rev. 37(6):538–552.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milliken FJ, Vollrath DA (1991) Strategic decision-making tasks and group effectiveness: Insights from theory and research on small group performance. Human Relations 44(12):1229–1253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morey NC, Luthans F (1984) An emic perspective and ethnoscience methods for organizational research. Acad. Management Rev. 9(1):27–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moss-Racusin CA, Rudman LA (2010) Disruptions in women’s self-promotion: The backlash avoidance model. Psych. Women Quart. 34(2):186–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nielsen S, Huse M (2010) Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception. Eur. Management Rev. 7(1):16–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palvia A, Vähämaa E, Vähämaa S (2015) Are female CEOs and chairwomen more conservative and risk averse? Evidence from the banking industry during the financial crisis. J. Bus. Ethics 131(3):577–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phelan JE, Rudman LA (2010) Prejudice toward female leaders: Backlash effects and women’s impression management dilemma. Soc. Personality Psych. Compass 4(10):807–820.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Post C, Byron K (2015) Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Acad. Management J. 58(5):1546–1571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ridgeway CL (2001) Gender, status, and leadership. J. Soc. Issues 57(4):637–655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA (1998) Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 74(3):629–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Glick P (2001) Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57(4):743–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rudman LA, Phelan JE (2008) Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 28:61–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz-Ziv M (2017) Gender and board activeness: The role of a critical mass. J. Financial Quantitative Anal. 52(2):751–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shah S, Corley K (2006) Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. J. Management Stud. 43(8):1821–1835.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith AN, Watkins MB, Ladge JJ, Carlton P (2019) Making the invisible visible: Paradoxical effects of intersectional invisibility on the career experiences of executive Black women. Acad. Management J. 62(6):1705–1734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith AN, Watkins MB, Burke MJ, Christian MS, Smith CE, Hall A, Simms S (2013) Gendered influence: A gender role perspective on the use and effectiveness of influence tactics. J. Management 39(5):1156–1183.Google Scholar
• Snyder M (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 30:526–537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steiner ID (1972) Group Process and Productivity (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Thomason B (2021) Ideal or idiosyncratic? How women manage work-family role conflict with focal and peripheral role senders. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print June 16, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1472.Link, Google Scholar
• Triana M del C, 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
• Turco CJ (2010) Cultural foundations of tokenism: Evidence from the leveraged buyout industry. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 75(6):894–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weinberg FJ, Treviño LJ, Cleveland AO (2019) Gendered communication and career outcomes: A construct validation and prediction of hierarchical advancement and non-hierarchical rewards. Comm. Res. 46(4):456–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Milton LP (2000) How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(2):366–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Zajac EJ (2013) A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):607–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams MJ, Tiedens LZ (2016) The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psych. Bull. 142(2):165–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Women Corporate Directors (n.d.) About WCD. Retrieved September 3, 2020, https://www.womencorporatedirectors.org/WCD/About/WCD/About_WCD/About_US.aspx?hkey=5f91a9cb-b0e1-4be5-9aeb-25362776555f.Google Scholar
• Wowak KD, Ball GP, Post C, Ketchen DJJ (2020) The influence of female directors on product recall decisions. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 23(4):895–913.Link, Google Scholar
• Yang S, Kher R, Newbert SL (2020) What signals matter for social startups? It depends: The influence of gender role congruity on social impact accelerator selection decisions. J. Bus. Venturing 35(2):105932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zelechowski DD, Bilimoria D (2004) Characteristics of women and men corporate inside directors in the US. Corporate Governance 12(3):337–342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang L (2020) An institutional approach to gender diversity and firm performance. Organ. Sci. 31(2):439–457.Link, Google Scholar
• Zheng W, Kark R, Meister AL (2018a) Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. Leadership Quart. 29(5):584–596.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zheng W, Surgevil O, Kark R (2018b) Dancing on the razor’s edge: How top-level women leaders manage the paradoxical tensions between agency and communion. Sex Roles 79(11–12):633–650.Crossref, Google Scholar