Social aspects like gender diversity in the boardroom are becoming increasingly relevant and are a popular topic of public debate in the context of gender equality in business. However, there is little clarity about the potential spill-over effects of gender diversity. Both theory and empirical results have led to ambiguous conclusions with respect to the effect of gender diversity in the supervisory board on gender diversity in the management board. In addition, it is not clear whether the German gender quota legislation positively affects this relationship. This study analyses whether gender diversity in the supervisory board supports the gender diversity of the management board, and whether this relationship is affected by the gender quota legislation, focusing on the unique case of Germany. To cope with endogeneity concerns, this study employs a cross-lagged panel model with fixed effects using maximum likelihood structural equation modelling. The results of the analysis of the impact of the number of female supervisory board members on the number of female management board members do not support the view of positive spill-over effects of gender diversity in the environment of the German two-tier corporate governance system. Furthermore, this study finds no evidence of an effect of the German gender quota on this relationship.
AdamsRBFerreiraD (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics94(2): 291–309.
2.
AdamsRBFunkP (2012) Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter?Management Science58(2): 219–235.
3.
AdamsRBHermalinBEWeisbachMS (2010) The role of boards of directors in corporate governance: A conceptual framework and survey. Journal of Economic Literature48(1), 58–107.
4.
AhernKRDittmarAK (2012) The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics127(1): 137–197.
AllisonPDBollenKA (1997) Change Score, Fixed Effects, and Random Component Models: A Structural Equation Approach. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
9.
AllisonPDWilliamsRMoral-BenitoE (2017) Maximum likelihood for cross-lagged panel models with fixed effects. In: Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.1–17.
AntonakisJBendahanSJacquartP, et al. (2010) On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly21: 1086–1120.
12.
AntonakisJBendahanSJacquartP, et al. (2014) Causality and Endogeneity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
ArellanoMBoverO (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics68(1): 29–51.
14.
ArvatePRGalileaGWTodescatI (2018) The queen bee: A myth? The effect of top-level female leadership on subordinate females. The Leadership Quarterly29(5): 533–548.
15.
AshfrodSRothbardNPPideritSK, et al. (1998) Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly43(1): 23–57.
16.
BaguesMSylos-LabiniMZinovyevaN (2017) Does the gender composition of scientific committees matter?American Economic Review107(4): 1207–1238.
17.
BertrandMSchoarA (2003) Managing with style: The effect of managers on firm policies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics118(4): 1169–1208.
18.
BertrandMGoldinCKatzLF (2010) Dynamics of the gender gap for young professionals in the financial and corporate sectors. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics2(3): 228–255.
19.
BertrandMBlackSEJensenS, et al. (2019) Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of board quotas on female labour market outcomes in Norway. Review of Economic Studies86(1): 191–239.
20.
BilimoriaD (2006) The relationship between women corporate directors and women corporate officers. Journal of Managerial Issues18(1): 47–61.
21.
BlundellRBondS (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics87(1): 115–143.
22.
BøhrenØStauboS (2014) Does mandatory gender balance work? Changing organizational form to avoid board upheaval. Journal of Corporate Finance28: 152–168.
23.
BollenKABrandJE (2010) A General panel model with random and fixed effects: A structural equations approach. Social Forces89(1): 1–34.
24.
BozhinovV (2018) Stock price reactions to policies promoting women on boards: Evidence from Germany. SSRN. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3006020
25.
Brosseau-LiardPESavaleiV (2014) Adjusting incremental fit indices for nonnormality. Multivariate Behavioral Research49(5): 460–470.
26.
Brosseau-LiardPESavaleiVLiL (2012) An investigation of the sample performance of two nonnormality corrections for RMSEA. Multivariate Behavioral Research47(6): 904–930.
27.
ByrneDE (1961) Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology62(3): 713–715.
28.
CookAGlassC (2015) Diversity begets diversity? The effects of board composition on the appointment and success of women CEOs. Social Science Research53: 137–147.
29.
DaoudJI (2017) Multicollinearity and regression analysis. Journal of Physics: Conference Series949: 012009.
30.
DerksBEllemersNvan LaarC, et al. (2011a) Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?British Journal of Social Psychology50(3): 519–535.
31.
DerksBVan LaarCEllemersN, et al. (2011b) Gender-bias primes elicit queen-bee responses among senior policewomen. Psychological Science22(10): 1243–1249.
32.
DuguidMMLoydDLTolbertPS (2012) The impact of categorical status, numeric representation, and work group prestige on preference for demographically similar others: A value threat approach. Organization Science23(2): 386–401.
33.
EaglyAHJohannesen-SchmidtMC (2001) The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues57(4): 781–797.
34.
EaglyAHJohnsonBT (1990) Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin108(2): 233–256.
35.
EaglyAHJohannesen-SchmidtMCvan EngenML (2003) Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin129(4): 569–591.
36.
ErkutSKramerVWKonradAM (2008) Critical mass: Does the number of women on a corporate board make a difference? In: VinnicombeSSinghVBurkeR, et al. (eds) Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: International Research and Practice. London: Edward Elgar, pp.222–232.
37.
FirebaughGWarnerCMassogliaM (2013) Fixed effects, random effects, and hybrid models for causal analysis. In: MorganSL (ed.) Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp.113–131.
38.
Germany (2015) Entwurf eines Gesetzes für die gleichberechtigte Teilhabe von Frauen und Männern an Führungspositionen in der Privatwirtschaft und im öffentlichen Dienst. Available at: https://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/037/1803784.pdf (accessed 4 September 2020).
39.
GouldJAKulikCTSardeshmukhSR (2018) Trickle-down effect: The impact of female board members on executive gender diversity. Human Resource Management57(4): 931–945.
40.
Government Commission German Corporate Governance Code (2019) German Corporate Governance Code. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp.1–19.
41.
HalabyCN (2004) Panel models in sociological research: Theory into practice. Annual Review of Sociology30(1): 507–544.
42.
HambrickD (2007) The upper echelon theory: An update. Academy of Management Review32(2): 334–343.
43.
HambrickDMasonP (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review9(2): 193–206.
44.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
45.
IbarraH (1995) Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal38(3): 673–703.
46.
KanterRM (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
47.
KanterRM (1987) Men and women of the corporation revisited. Management Review76(3): 14–16.
48.
KirschA (2018) The gender composition of corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly29(2): 346–364.
49.
KirschAWrohlichK (2020) More women on supervisory boards: Increasing indications that the effect of the gender quota extends to executive boards. DIW Weekly Report10(4/5): 44–49.
50.
KlineRB (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.New York, NY: Guilford.
51.
KonradAMKramerVErkutS (2008) Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics37(2): 145–164.
52.
KunzeAMillerA (2017) Women helping women? Evidence from private sector data on workplace hierarchies. Review of Economics and Statistics99(5): 769–775.
53.
MaidaAWeberA (2019) Female leadership and gender gap within firms: Evidence from an Italian board reform. IZA Discussion Paper12099: 1–38.
54.
MasulisRWWangCXieF (2012) Globalizing the boardroom—The effects of foreign directors on corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics53(3): 527–554.
55.
MatsaDAMillerAR (2011) Chipping away at the glass ceiling: Gender spillovers in corporate leadership. American Economic Review101(3): 635–639.
56.
MaumeDJ (2011) Meet the new boss. . .same as the old boss? Female supervisors and subordinate career prospects. Social Science Research40(1): 287–298.
57.
MavinS (2006) Venus envy: Problematizing solidarity behaviour and queen bees. Women in Management Review21(4): 264–276.
58.
MavinS (2008) Queen bees, wannabees and afraid to Bees: No more ‘best enemies’ for women in management?British Journal of Management19(s1): S75–S84.
59.
MillerAR (2011) The effects of motherhood timing on career path. Journal of Population Economics24(3): 1071–1100.
60.
Moral-BenitoE (2017) Dynamic Panel Data Modelling Using Maximum Likelihood: An Alternative to Arellano-Bond. SSRN. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2905606
61.
NiederleMVesterlundL (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?The Quarterly Journal of Economics122(3): 1067–1101.
62.
NievaVFGutekBA (1981) Women and Work: A Psychological Perspective. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
63.
OliverC (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review16(1): 145–179.
64.
PennerAMToro-TullaHJHuffmanML (2012) Do women managers ameliorate gender differences in wages? Evidence from a large grocery retailer. Sociological Perspectives55(2): 365–381.
65.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
66.
RuigrokWPeckSTachevaS (2007) Nationality and gender diversity on swiss corporate boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review15(4): 546–557.
67.
SatorraABentlerPM (1988) Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in covariance structure analysis. American Statistical Association Proceedings of Business and Economics Sections1: 308–313.
68.
SatorraABentlerPM (1994) Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: Latent Variables Analysis: Applications for Developmental Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.399–419.
69.
SkaggsSStainbackKDuncanP (2012) Shaking things up or business as usual? The influence of female corporate executives and board of directors on women’s managerial representation. Social Science Research41(4): 936–948.
70.
SojoVEWoodREWoodSA, et al. (2016) Reporting requirements, targets, and quotas for women in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly27(3): 519–536.
71.
StainesGTavrisCJayaratneT (1974) The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today7(8): 55–60.
72.
TeachmanJDuncanGJYeungWJ, et al. (2001) Covariance structure models for fixed and random effects. Sociological Methods & Research30(2): 271–288.
73.
TorchiaMCalabròAHuseM (2011) Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics102(2): 299–317.
74.
WilliamsRAllisonPDMoral-BenitoE (2018) Linear dynamic panel-data estimation using maximum likelihood and structural equation modeling. The Stata Journal18(2): 293–326.
75.
WintokiMBLinckJSNetterJM (2012) Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics105(3): 581–606.
76.
YuanK-H (2005) Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research40(1): 115–148.
