Women and Racial Minorities in the Boardroom: How Do Directors Differ?

By Amy J. Hillman, Albert A. Cannella, I. C. Harris. 2002

961 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c604815a181d7b6545bc20b553877809858cf104

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Gender Studies

Citations in the corpus

Ethnic diversity on top corporate boards: a resource dependency perspective (2007, methodology): “However, Hillman et al. (2002) did not examine the nature of the companies on whose boards these directors sat, nor did they examine in detail their social capital.”
A Cross-Country Investigation of Corporate Governance and Corporate Sustainability Disclosure: A Signaling Theory Perspective (2018, positive): “Agency conflicts also can be reduced by internal and external directors’ shareholding that motivates them to monitor the firm’s management rigorously [6,44].”
The Other Pathway to the Boardroom: Interpersonal Influence Behavior as a Substitute for Elite Credentials and Majority Status in Obtaining Board Appointments (2006, background): “…research by Domhoff and colleagues (Domhoff, 2002; Zweigenhaft and Domhoff, 1998), as well as recent large-sample quantitative research by Hillman, Cannella, and Harris (2002), suggests that ethnic minorities and women are generally disadvantaged in obtaining board positions at large…”
Does Having Women on Boards Create Value? The Impact of Societal Perceptions and Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets (2014, positive): “Furthermore, women typically do not belong to the “old boys club” and are more aligned with the concept of independent directors than their male counterparts (Hillman et al., 2002).”
Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Evidence from New Zealand (2011, background): “Since women generally face glass ceiling in the corporate sector, majority of them are likely to be from public sector (Hillman et al., 2002).”
Women on corporate boards: key influencers or tokens? (2010, background): “A major assumption underlying research on women on corporate boards is that they bring different resources and external relationships to the board and that potentially this enhances the value of the board and may actually improve board performance (Hillman et al. 2002).”
Maximizing Stakeholders' Interests: An Empirical Analysis of the Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Governance (2014, neutral): “…on boards will increase board legitimacy and alter the way the board operates to include more explicit recognition of stakeholder issues (e.g. Hillman et al., 2002), the mere presence of these representatives probably cannot be interpreted as an indicator that corporations are sensitive to…”
Comprehensive Board Diversity and Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from an Emerging Market (2017, background): “…on the board is beneﬁcial to ﬁrms in improving CSR disclosure in the sense that it better understands customers’ preferences and requirements within the same ethnicity (Morrison 1992 as cited in Richard 2000) and thus is able to offer a different perspective to the ﬁrms (Hillman et al. 2002).”