The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Double-Edged Nature of Board Gender Diversity: Diversity, Firm Performance, and the Power of Women Directors as Predictors of Strategic Change
Abstract
Diverse boards have been seen as providing impetus for initiating change. However, diversity may introduce conflict and impede decision making, which could hinder the ability of the firm to make strategic change, especially in times when firm performance is low. Integrating threat-rigidity theory and team diversity research, we examine how board gender diversity, firm performance, and the power of women directors interact to influence the amount of strategic change. Results support a three-way interaction, indicating that when the board is not experiencing a threat as a result of low firm performance and women directors have greater power, the relationship between board gender diversity and amount of strategic change is the most positive. However, when the board is threatened by low firm performance and women directors have greater power, the relationship between board gender diversity and amount of strategic change is the most negative. Results suggest that diversity is double-edged because it can propel or impede strategic change depending on firm performance and the power of women directors.
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
Explaining Development and Change in Organizations
van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329 · Cited by 3,762
Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 · Cited by 3,071
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256948 · Cited by 2,855
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776
Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation
Finkelstein, S. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256485 · Cited by 2,389
Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs*
Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00384 · Cited by 2,062
An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that Employees Don’t Communicate Upward and Why*
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00387 · Cited by 1,671
Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131004 · Cited by 1,290
What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x · Cited by 1,276
Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups: A Status Characteristics Perspective
Bunderson, J. S. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556637 · Cited by 527
Westphal, J. D., & Bednar, M. K. (2005) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.262 · Cited by 404
Metadata
- Authors
- Triana, M. D. C., Miller, T. L., & Trzebiatowski, T. M.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 609-632
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2079019164
- Cited by
- 457
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 26.38
- 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
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.
