The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Makes Better Boards? A Closer Look at Diversity and Ownership
Abstract
This study investigates the joint effect of corporate ownership and board of directors' diversity configurations on the success of strategic merger and acquisition (M&A) decisions. Board diversity is defined as the extent to which its demographic diversity as measured by the culture, nationality, gender and experience of its directors complements its statutory diversity. A theoretical framework linking ownership, board diversity and M&A strategic decision making is proposed and tested. Based on a sample of 289 M&A decisions undertaken by C anadian firms over the period 2000–2007, demographic diversity is found to have a clear and non‐linear effect on M&A performance while statutory diversity is of limited influence. Ownership is found to influence the effect of diversity, making the relation finer and more precise. This has practical implications. First, statutory diversity is not sufficient for well‐performing boards. Also, ownership is an important factor. The most advocated board diversity aimed at insuring the board's independence is not valid across all ownership configurations. From a public policy perspective, results provide support for the principles‐based approach in governance. Governance regimes should encourage the search for a balance between board diversity and the need for cohesion that best serves the firm's purpose and obligations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
Corporate Governance and Equity Prices
Gompers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/00335530360535162 · Cited by 6,120
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9605060217 · Cited by 3,413
Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667029 · Cited by 2,971
Cited by
Boardroom Diversity and its Effect on Social Performance: Conceptualization and Empirical Evidence
Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1272-z · Cited by 758
Self-citationFemale board directorship and firm performance: What really matters?
Bennouri, M., Chtioui, T., Nagati, H., & Nekhili, M. (2018) · Journal of Banking & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.12.010 · Cited by 553
Ararat, M., Aksu, M., & Tansel Cetin, A. (2015) · Corporate Governance: An International Review · doi:10.1111/corg.12103 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Ben‐Amar, W., Francoeur, C., Hafsi, T., & Labelle, R.
- Venue
- British Journal of Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-11-14
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 85-101
- ISSN
- 1045-3172 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8551
- OpenAlex
- W3125786623
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 10.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Makes Better Boards? A Closer Look at Diversity and Ownership. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00789.x
- The paper
- Ben‐Amar, W., Francoeur, C., Hafsi, T., & Labelle, R. (2013). What Makes Better Boards? A Closer Look at Diversity and Ownership. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00789.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.