1. Rationale
1.1 Background
Gender diversity has turned out to be an important topic in today’s management discourses. This has been informed by the broader discourse on workplace diversity, which essentially entails embracing and appreciating differences in the workforce with regard to gender, age, sexual orientation, work experience, physical ability, religious and political inclination, as well as racial, ethnic, and cultural background (Vinnicombe, 2008). Attention to diversity has been marked as an important embodiment of good and ethical corporate governance (Boddy, 2014). This implies that embracing diversity can be a significant source of competitive advantage in today’s world, where seemingly unimportant issues such as diversity can build or break an organisation’s public reputation (Marinova et al., 2010).
Gender diversity has particularly attracted a great deal of attention as far as workplace diversity discourses are concerned. This has been informed by the skewed representation of women at the workplace, especially in top decision making positions (Nielsen and Huse, 2010). Though tremendous progress has been made in the last few decades, women are still significantly excluded from key positions in organisations – they are often tasked with less demanding positions such as administrative and clerical jobs (Terjesen et al., 2009; Ararat et al., 2013). It has actually been reported that women comprise less than 20% of board positions in large firms, especially Fortune 500 firms, and less than 5% of CEO positions (Egan, 2015). The implication is that organisations could be locking themselves from the benefits that come with gender diversity at the organisational level and, more importantly, at top decision making positions such as the board. This perhaps explains why corporate governance aspects relating to board composition are being revised in some countries, especially European countries, so as to reserve more seats for women in the board of directors (Suk, 2015).
Studies carried out in different sectors and industries have actually suggested that boards with a balanced representation of men and women tend to be more effective in implementing their functions, which may ultimately enhance firm performance (Terjesen et al., 2009; Nielsen and Huse, 2010; Julizaerma and Sori, 2012; Ararat et al., 2013; Low et al., 2015). Though the exact mechanism through which gender diversity at the board level influences firm performance remains largely unclear, it has been suggested that the innate differences between men and women in terms of skill and behaviour could explain why boards with a greater number of women are more likely to more effectively execute board functions (Julizaerma and Sori, 2012; Egan, 2015). Nevertheless, some studies have asserted that there is need for more empirical evidence to validate the relationship between board gender diversity and organisational performance. These studies have particularly argued that the relationship between board gender diversity and firm performance is insignificant, negative, or non-existent (Gallego-Alvarez et al., 2010; Marinova et al., 2010; Carter et al., 2010; Damadi, 2010).
1.2 Research Problem
A major problem with research in this area is that attention has mainly been on large firms, especially publicly listed firms. In other words, considerable scholarly attention is yet to be paid to smaller firms. Actually, while reports extensively indicate the percentage of women in board and executive positions (Egan, 2015; Suk, 2015), little is known about the same in smaller firms. The few studies that have been carried out in this area (such as Julizaerma and Sori, 2012; Laible, 2013) have studied smaller firms alongside large firms rather than focusing exclusively on smaller firms. Others (such as Minguez-Vera and Martin, 2011; Ruiz-Jimenez and Fuentes-Fuentes, 2013; Martin-Ugedo and Minguez-Vera, 2014) may not be readily generalisable as they have been conducted in certain contexts.
Little or lack of scholarly attention to smaller firms is particularly true for publicly listed firms in the UK. This is particularly worrying given the instrumental role they play in the country’s economy, especially with respect to GDP contribution and employment creation. This gap in literature will constitute the focus of the present study. In essence, the study seeks to examine the relationship between board gender diversity and the performance of smaller firms listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). In the LSE, smaller firms are mainly listed in the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), which allows them to float shares under a less stringent regulatory framework compared to the main market (London Stock Exchange [LSE], 2015). The segment mainly targets firms in high growth areas such as technology, biotech, and clean energy.
1.3 Research Objectives and Questions
The objective of this research is to test whether a positive relationship exists between board gender diversity and performance in AIM listed firms. The research will specifically seek to achieve the following three objectives:
- To examine the relationship between the percentage of women in the board and return on equity in AIM listed firms in the UK?
- To investigate the relationship between the percentage of women in the board and return on assets in AIM listed firms in the UK?
- To study the relationship between the percentage of women in the board and firm value in AIM listed firms in the UK?
Following from the above objectives, the following questions will constitute the focus of the study:
- Is there a positive relationship between the percentage of women in the board and return on equity in AIM listed firms in the UK?
- Is there a positive relationship between the percentage of women in the board and return on assets in AIM listed firms in the UK?
- Is there a positive relationship between the percentage of women in the board and firm value in AIM listed firms in the UK?
1.4 Research Significance
The research is expected to have significant implications for smaller firms in general, and especially those in the UK. It is imperative for smaller firms to have an understanding of how gender diversity at top decision making levels in the organisational hierarchy can drive value and firm strategy, which can ultimately positively contribute to firm performance. The extant literature largely lacks this knowledge as much focus has been on large firms. In essence, gender diversity appears to be important only for large organisations. However, this is not necessarily true. In today’s highly competitive environment, the significance of exhibiting ethical corporate governance cannot be overemphasised regardless of industry of operation or firm size (Boddy, 2014). Firms in different sectors and industries and of different sizes can benefit immensely from embracing gender diversity at not only the organisational level, but also top decision making positions (Vinnicombe, 2008).
The importance of embracing gender diversity at top decision making levels emanates from the fact that gender diversity at the board level increases the likelihood of embracing gender diversity across the entire organisation (Marinova et al., 2010). In other words, since the board is the uttermost decision making authority in any organisation, a board with a more balanced representation of both genders is more likely to make decisions that will promote gender diversity across all organisational levels, which may consequently influence organisational performance in the long run. This study will, therefore, provide valuable knowledge for smaller firms with respect to how gender diversity at the board level can be a crucial driver of firm performance.
2. Literature Review
Gender diversity discourses have largely emanated from the wider discourses on workplace diversity. This implies that it is first important to understand what diversity in general means before narrowing down to gender diversity. Scholars are yet to offer a clear-cut, straightforward definition of diversity as the concept can be viewed from various perspectives. According to Cox and Black (1991), diversity can be functional or non-functional. Functional diversity refers to diversity that is concerned with enhancing function and innovativeness in the workplace. It essentially relates to the economic benefits brought about by diversity (Simons and Rowland, 2011). For instance, composing work teams with individuals with diverse skills, attributes, and abilities can improve the effectiveness of the team.
Nevertheless, there are several other forms of diversity in practice whose aim is not necessarily to enhance organisational function or effectiveness. These forms constitute non-functional diversity, which is also referred to as social diversity (Simons and Rowland, 2011). Social diversity essentially refers to diversity intended to create a workplace that is representative of all voices and perspectives. This form of diversity has actually been described as the political perspective of diversity (Paludi, 2012). In essence, differences in social and demographic attributes are put into consideration when composing and managing the workforce. These characteristics include gender, age, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political inclination, as well as racial, ethnic, and cultural background (Paludi, 2012). From the political or non-functional perspective, therefore, diversity is all about inclusion and equal representation of individuals with diverse social and demographic characteristics in the workforce.
Following from this definition, gender diversity can be described as balancing the representation of both genders in the workforce. As explained by Julizaerma and Sori (2012), gender diversity entails exploiting the diversity of skills, abilities, and attributes in men and women to the advantage of an organisation. More specifically, board gender diversity can be described as balancing the representation of both genders at the board level. It includes the inclusion of women in the board of directors (Julizaerma and Sori, 2012). Therefore, it can be seen that gender diversity is more rooted in the non-functional or political perspective as it aims to create an environment where the voice of both genders is acknowledged and heard at all organisational levels. Nonetheless, gender diversity may as well be viewed from the functional perspective in the sense that equalising gender representation in the workforce or board may improve organisational effectiveness.
Historically, gender diversity has been a highly contentious topic, particularly owing to the skewed representation of women in the work force (Paludi, 2012). Nonetheless, tremendous progress has been made towards achieving gender diversity. Today, there are more women in the workforce than ever before (Vinnicombe, 2008). However, women have largely been concentrated in less challenging and demanding positions such as administrative, clerical, and human resource jobs. In other words, women have largely been excluded from top decision making positions in the organisational hierarchy (Terjesen et al., 2009; Ararat et al., 2013). The insignificant proportion of women in executive or board positions compared to men is a clear indication that gender diversity at top decision making levels is yet to be achieved (Egan, 2015). This could be particularly worrying given the significance of board composition with respect to aligning shareholder and executive interests as well as ensuring effective decision making (Vinnicombe, 2008).
A major focus of research in this area relates to the implications of gender diversity on firm performance. It is important to first understand what firm performance entails. In the most basic sense, performance denotes the degree to which an organisation attains its set goals and objectives. Firm goals and objectives can be financial and non-financial (Darmadi, 2010; Chen et al., 2015). For instance, financial objectives may relate to aspects such as revenue, profitability, return on assets, return on equity, stock price, and firm value, while non-financial objectives may relate to aspects such as customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, product quality, corporate social responsibility, research development, innovation and creativity, and market share. In essence, firm performance may be financial or non-financial. Nonetheless, scholarly focus (for example, Nielsen and Huse, 2010; Marinova et al., 2010; Julizaerma and Sori, 2012; Luckerath-Rothers, 2013; Ararat et al., 2013) is often on financial performance. All the same, it is generally acknowledged that non-financial objectives ultimately lead to the achievement of financial objectives.
Though the financial versus non-financial performance is the general categorisation of firm performance, it is important to note that there are other classifications of performance. Motowildo et al. (1997), for instance, categorise performance into function (task) and contextual performance. The former refers to tasks that characterise an organisation’s technical core, while the latter denotes individual performance aspects that enhance the social and psychological climate of the organisation, such as an individual’s ability to cooperate with co-workers. Regardless of the categorisation, diversity at the workplace is increasingly turning out to be an important driver of value and competitive advantage.
With a clear understanding of the concepts of gender diversity and firm performance, a fundamental question arises: what are the implications of gender diversity on firm performance? A report by McKinsey and Company (2007) shows that organisations with a higher percentage of women, particularly at board and executive levels, depict better performance compared to those with a lower proportion of women. This argument has been supported by several studies conducted in diverse contexts. For instance, in their survey of publicly listed Malaysian firms, Julizaerma and Sori (2012) have shown that the percentage of women on the board is positively associated with return on assets. A major strength of the study is that it included not only large firms, but also firms quoted in the alternative segment, which includes smaller firms. This implies that board gender diversity could be positively related to firm performance in smaller firms. Nonetheless, the generalisability of the study is limited by the fact that it focused only on Malaysian firms, implying that the findings may not be readily generalised to other contexts due to factors such as cultural differences, which tend to influence management, style, organisational culture, as well as the participation of women in the workforce (Paludi, 2012).
Furthermore, in their survey of publicly quoted South Korean, Malaysian, and Hong Kong firms, Low et al. (2015) have shown that the proportion of women on the board is positively associated with return on equity. Other studies have also supported the positive relationship between gender diversity and firm performance (Carter et al., 2002; Terjesen et al., 2009; Nielsen and Huse, 2010; Luckerath-Rothers, 2013; Ararat et al., 2013). It has, however, been argued that the positive influence of board gender diversity tends to be more significant in firms or industries where innovation and creativity are more vital for developing competitive advantage such as engineering organisations (Chen et al., 2015). This argument actually resonates with a recent remark by the current president of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), Naomi Climer, who is the first female of the institution. Climer particularly asserted that the shortage of female workers in the engineering profession in the UK is a major concern for the country as it threatens its ability to keep pace with its counterparts with regard to scientific and technological innovations (Burn-Callander, 2015). Though Climer’s remark was specifically directed to engineering firms, it somewhat illustrates the implications of gender diversity on firm performance, particularly with regard to non-financial aspects such as innovation and creativity.
While some studies have suggested that board gender diversity is positively related to performance, especially financial performance, others have suggested otherwise. In their survey of firms quoted at the Madrid Stock Exchange, Gallego-Alvarez et al. (2010) have demonstrated that organisations with a greater representation of women in the board do not obviously perform better than their counterparts with a lower representation, particularly with respect to financial performance. Furthermore, a survey of 186 firms listed on the Danish and Dutch stock exchanges has shown that board gender diversity is not related to firm value (Marinova et al., 2010). These findings, however, contradict with a similar study carried out in the same contexts, which found that organisations with a higher percentage of women in the board depicted better performance with respect to operating income, return on sales, return on equity, return on investment, as well as stock price performance compared to those with a lower percentage (Luckerath-Rovers, 2013). In addition, a survey of S&P 500 firms illustrates that no significant relationship exists between gender diversity at the board level and firm performance (Carter et al., 2010). Though these studies were conducted specifically within certain contexts, they make significant contributions to the board gender diversity-firm performance discourse by showing that the presence or absence of women on the board may not influence firm performance altogether.
Some studies have even shown that board gender diversity is negatively associated with firm performance. For instance, in a survey of 169 firms listed on the Indonesian stock market, Darmadi (2010) shows that gender diversity is negatively associated with firm value, return on investment, return on assets, and return on equity. A major advantage of this study compared to most other studies in this area (such as Marinova et al., 2010; Julizaerma and Sori, 2012; Low et al., 2015) is that it focuses on several aspects of financial performance as opposed to one aspect. Nevertheless, like most studies in this area, the study ignores the influence of board gender diversity on non-financial performance. All the same, the study casts further uncertainty over the positive relationship between gender diversity at the board level and firm performance.
A major limitation with gender diversity-firm performance literature is that it largely fails to explain the exact mechanism through which gender diversity influences firm performance. It has, however, been suggested that the innate differences between men and women in terms of skill and behaviour could explain why boards with a greater number of women are more likely to more effectively execute board functions (Julizaerma and Sori, 2012). For instance, women are more likely to take into consideration perspectives that men may ignore, or have a better comprehension of particular market conditions than men, which may enhance decision making. Another explanation is that gender diversity often symbolises good corporate governance and may have positive influences on an organisation’s public image, thereby positively affecting performance in the long run (Marinova et al., 2010). Furthermore, a higher percentage of women at the board level may likely translate to a higher percentage of women in management positions as well as throughout the entire organisation, which may directly or indirectly enhance organisational productivity (Marinova et al., 2010). This may consequently result in equal pay initiatives as well as women-friendly policies such as pregnancy accommodation, which are crucial sources of motivation for female employees (Suk, 2015).
On the other hand, critics of the alleged positive relationship between board gender diversity and firm performance have argued that a more diverse board may result in sluggish decision making since the possibility of reaching consensus when there are diverse viewpoints to be considered may be little (Marinova et al., 2010). Consequently, this may negatively affect firm performance. In essence, the need to consider diverse views and opinions may create conflicts, which may slow decision making and hence negatively affect firm performance in the long run. Another argument is that women naturally do not possess the toughness needed to handle complex positions such as board and executive positions (Vinnicombe, 2008). However, the success of women in top positions such as General Motors’s Mary Barra, PepsiCo’s Indra Nooyi, IBM’s Virginia Rometry, and HP’s Meg Whitman discredits this argument. Overall, while these explanations could be valid to some extent, they still do not provide a clear account of how gender diversity at the board or organisational levels contributes to or hinders firm performance. It is, therefore, imperative for research to explain the underlying causal mechanism rather than just reporting that a correlation exists between gender diversity and firm performance.
Another limitation is that much of the literature is contextual in nature. In other words, most studies care conducted within specific country contexts, which limits the generalisability of the findings to other settings. For instance, a study conducted in the Malaysian context may not be readily generalised to the UK context owing to factors such as cultural differences, which tend to influence how organisations are managed or perceptions about workplace diversity (Paludi, 2012). In Asian countries such as Malaysia and South Korea, which are generally characterised by paternalistic or autocratic cultures, female participation in the workforce is lower than in Western countries such as the UK, which are generally characterised by democratic cultures (Low et al., 2015). The implication is that the magnitude of the impact of board gender diversity on firm performance may vary with the degree of female participation in the workforce, which is often a function of the underlying national culture.
An even more important limitation is that much focus has been on large firms, with little or no attention to smaller firms. A number of studies have, however, paid attention to SMEs. In Julizaerma and Sori (2012) and Laible (2013), for instance, it has been shown that board gender diversity can have a positive impact on firm performance in both large firms and SMEs. Nonetheless, a major limitation with these studies is that they examined smaller firms alongside large firms rather than focusing exclusively on smaller firms. Though some studies have focused exclusively on SMEs, they provide nixed findings. For example, in their study of non-financial SMEs in Spain, Martin-Ugedo and Minguez-Vera (2014) found that the presence of women on the board was positively associated with firm performance, especially with respect to return on assets. Another study carried out in the same context also found that gender diversity in top management positively moderated the relationship between management capabilities and product and process innovation in smaller firms in the technology industry (Ruiz-Jimenez and Fuentes-Fuentes, 2013).
Nonetheless, an empirical analysis of non-financial small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the same context found that the presence of women in the board had a negative impact on return on equity (Minguez-Vera and Martin, 2011). A possible explanation for the negative relationship is that women tend to be more risk averse than men, hence favour less risky strategies. Overall, the few studies that have focused on smaller firms provide mixed evidence. Most importantly, owing to their contextual nature, the studies may not be readily generalisable to the UK context. This gap in literature will constitute the focus of the present study, which will take the quantitative form.
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Research Design
3.1.1 Research Philosophy and Approach
Research philosophy, also known as research paradigm provides the foundation upon which the researcher makes decisions relating to the research approach, the research strategy, as well as sampling, data collection, and data analysis techniques. In essence, research philosophy denotes the epistemological and ontological beliefs and assumptions that guide the researcher throughout the entire research process (Bryman, 2008). Generally, research may be conducted within the positivist paradigm or the interpretivist paradigm (Saunders et al., 2015). The positivist paradigm holds that knowledge is objective, external and generalisable. As such, knowledge is constructed by collecting and analysing empirical data, often through quantitative techniques such as experiments and surveys. The knowledge construction process takes the deductive approach, which entails developing a hypothesis and gathering primary data to prove or disprove the hypothesis (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
The fact that positivist research is objective has important implications as far as the relationship between the researcher and the subject(s) is concerned. In other words, the researcher often does not cultivate a closer relationship with the subject(s) – their major role is mainly to collect data and examine cause-and-effect relationships (Bryman, 2008). The advantage of this distant relationship is that the researcher is often in a position to conduct research without interfering with the subjects (Saunders et al., 2015). Another advantage of positivist research is that the researcher is able to easily collect data from a large number of subjects (Blackstone, 2014). In addition, the analysis of this data often involves less time and difficult. Nonetheless, since the researcher does not interact more closely with the subjects, the positivist paradigm often does not provide an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Additionally, the positivist paradigm permits little or no flexibility as far as the research process is concerned (Bryman, 2008).
The interpretivist paradigm is basically the opposite of the positivist paradigm. The paradigm views knowledge as subjective and contextual (Bryman, 2008). In other words, knowledge has individualised meanings which may not be readily generalisable. Unlike the positivist paradigm, which takes the deductive approach, interpretivist research takes the inductive approach, where the researcher first observes a social phenomenon and then develops theories to explain the observed phenomenon (Saunders et al., 2015). In addition, while positive research is primarily concerned with examining cause-and-effect relationships, interpretivist research is primarily concerned with obtaining an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study (Blackstone, 2014). To gain this in-depth understanding, the researcher often has to cultivate a closer relationship with the subject(s). This implies that interpretivist research is often based on qualitative techniques such as observations and in-depth interviews (Blackstone, 2014). Since the researcher and the subject(s) are viewed as closely related entities, the researcher may at times interfere with the subject(s) (Bryman, 2008).
Besides providing an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study, interpretivist research allows flexibility in the research process, implying that the researcher may adjust strategies and techniques to suit the situation at hand (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Nevertheless, there are inherent limitations. For instance, findings may not be readily generalisable as they are often constructed based on a small number of subjects, whose interpretation of the phenomenon under study is often subjective (Bryman, 2008). Most importantly, with techniques such as in-depth interviews, data collection and analysis is often a difficult and time consuming process (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
Since the aim of this research is to test whether a positive relationship exists between board gender diversity and performance in AIM listed firms in the UK, it will be operationalised within the positivist paradigm. This implies that the study, which will be quantitative in nature, will mainly be concerned about the correlation between board gender diversity and firm performance as opposed to contextual factors that may determine the inclusion of women in the board such as firm attributes and culture. Additionally, being a positivist study, the resultant findings will be fairly generalisable to settings outside the UK. This, however, does not necessarily imply that firm performance differences as a result of contextual differences should be ignored.
3.1.2 Research Strategy
Since this study will be quantitative in nature, the survey strategy is deemed as an appropriate strategy for executing the study. In essence, the study will be a survey of AIM listed firms in the UK. The choice of this strategy is particularly informed by the need to collect data from several cases (Bryman, 2008). In fact, the relative easiness involved in collecting data from a large number of subjects is one of the major advantages of a survey (Saunders et al., 2015). This implies that the researcher will be in a position to collect data relating to a large number of SMEs from the target population.
3.2 Research Methods
3.2.1 Sampling
The target population for this study is smaller publicly listed firms in the UK. In the UK, smaller firms are traded under the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), which is a segment of the LSE. As at 2015, the AIM had 1,066 firms (both local and international) operating in various industries, including technology, healthcare, utilities, financial services, consumer goods, as well as oil and gas. In most cases, especially when conducting quantitative research, a sample to represent the target population is selected in a random fashion. In this case, however, non-random sampling will be used. More specifically, like in the case of Julizaerma and Sori (2012), quota sampling, which is a non-random form of stratified sampling, will be used to locate the sample. Quota sampling generally entails dividing the target population in mutually exclusive sub-groups, from which subjects are selected based on a preset proportion (Easternby-Smith et al., 2008).
In this case, firms listed under AIM will first be categorised based on industry of operation. AIM firms are categorised into 10 major industries: technology (11%), healthcare (7%), oil and gas (12%), consumer services (11%), basic materials (16%), utilities (1%), industrials (17%), telecommunications (1%), consumer goods (6%), and financial services (18%) (LSE, 2015). Subjects will then be picked from each category based on their respective proportion relative to all AIM firms. For instance, firms in the technology industry currently represent 11% of the total firms in the AIM. This implies that 11% of the subjects in the sample will be firms in the technology industry. This is informed by the need to ensure a fair representation of each industry in the sample. Assuming a 5% margin of error (confidence interval) and a 95% confidence level, and taking into account the size of the target population, the expected sample size is 283. While quote sampling is deemed appropriate for this study, limitations such as the possibility of bias in the selection of subjects cannot be ignored (Easternby-Smith et al., 2008).
3.2.2 Data Collection
As mentioned earlier, this study will be quantitative in nature, implying that the required data will as well be quantitative in nature. The study will specifically collect data relating to two variables: board gender diversity (the independent variable) and firm performance (the dependent variable). Board gender diversity will be measured as the proportion of women in the board relative to the total number of board members (both executive and non-executive). As seen in the literature review, the dependent variable (firm performance) entails several aspects, which can be either financial or non-financial. Since it may not be feasible to include all these aspects in a single study, this study will focus on financial aspects. Additionally, since financial measures of performance are broad, this study will specifically focus on return on assets, return on equity, and firm value.
It is important to note that firm performance is often influenced by several variables, and not necessarily board gender diversity. Therefore, it will be important to control for variables such as firm age and industry of operation. In addition, a major limitation of quantitative research is that some variables may not be readily quantifiable (Bryman, 2008). Nonetheless, in this case this difficulty may not be experienced as all variables can easily be quantified. Data relating to the two variables will primarily be obtained from the companies’ annual reports. The study will include data only for the period 2015.
3.2.3 Data Analysis
Descriptive and statistical techniques will be used to analyse the collected data. Descriptive statistics will be particularly useful for presenting data relating to aspects such as percentage of women in the board as well as financial performance measures. Statistical techniques, which will specifically include correlation and regression analyses, will be useful for determining the nature and magnitude of the relationship between the proportion of women in the board and firm performance.
3.3 Ethics
Since this research will not involve human subjects, one may think that ethical issues will not be considered. This is, however, not the case. First, it will be imperative to reduce bias as far as subject selection is concerned (Saunders et al., 2015). Additionally, the significance of interpreting the gathered data as objectively as possible cannot be overemphasised (Bryman, 2008). More importantly, anonymity will be retained in the sense that names of companies or board members will not be stated in the report.
4. Conclusion
This research aims to examine the relationship between board gender diversity and firm performance, with a special focus on publicly listed firms in the UK. The research has been motivated by the huge dearth of research in this area. The research will have significant implications for smaller firms in terms of not only achieving greater gender diversity at the board level, but also enhancing performance.
References
Ararat, M., Aksu, M., and Cetin, A. (2013) How board diversity affects firm performance in emerging markets: evidence on channels in controlled firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(2), 83-103.
Blackstone, A. (2014) Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Flat World Education.
Boddy, D. (2014) Management: an introduction (6th edition). London: Pearson Education.
Bryman, A. (2008) Social research methods (3rd edition). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007) Business research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burn-Callander, R. (2015, December 4) Shortage of female engineers is a threat to the UK, says industry chief. The Telegraph. [online] Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/12032072/Shortage-of-female-engineers-is- a-threat-to-the-UK-says-industry-chief.html [accessed 30 March 2016]
Carter, D., D’Souza, F., Simkins, B. and Simpson, W. (2010) The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(5), 396-414.
Carter, D., Simkins, B. and Simpson, W. (2002) Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm performance. Working Paper, Oklahoma State University.
Chen, J., Leung, W. and Evans, K. (2015) Board gender diversity, innovation and firm performance. Social Science Research Network.
Cox, T. and Blake, S. (1991). Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for Organizational Competitiveness. The Executive, 5(3), 45-56.
Darmadi, S. (2010) Board diversity and firm performance: the Indonesia evidence. Corporate Ownership and Control, 1(9), 524-539.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (2008) Management Research: an introduction (3rd edition). London: Sage Publications.
Egan, M. (2015, March 24) Still missing: female business leaders. [online] Available from: http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/24/investing/female-ceo-pipeline-leadership/ [accessed 30 March 2016]
Gallego-Alvarez, I., Garcia-Sanchez, I. and Rodriguez-Dominguez, L. (2010) The influence of gender diversity on corporate performance. Revista de Contabilidad, 28(1), 53-88.
Julizaerma, M. and Sori, Z. (2012) Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance of Malaysian public listed companies. International Congress on Interdisciplinary Business and Social Sciences, 65(3), 1077-1085.
Laible, M. (2013) Gender diversity in top management and firm performance: an analysis with the IAM-Establishment Panel. CAED Conference Paper, Atlanta, September 18- 20, 2013.
London Stock Exchange (2015) AIM Factsheet. [online] Available from: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/statistics/historic/aim/aim-statistics-archive- 2015/july-15.pdf [accessed 30 March 2016]
Low, D., Roberts, H. and Whiting, R. (2015) Board gender diversity and firm performance: empirical evidence from Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 35, 381-401.
Luckerath-Rovers, M. (2013) Women on boards and firm performance. Journal of Management and Governance, 17, 491-509.
Marinova, J., Plantenga, J. and Remery, C. (2010) Gender diversity and firm performance: evidence from Dutch and Danish boardrooms. Discussion Paper Series, No. 10, University Utrecht.
Martin-Ugedo, J. and Minguez-Vera, A. (2014) Firm performance and women on the board: evidence from Spanish small and medium-sized enterprises. Feminist Economics, 20(3), 136-162.
McKinsey and Company (2007) Gender diversity, a corporate performance driver. [online] Available from: http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/women-matter-oct-2007 [accessed 30 March 2016]
Minguez-Vera, A. and Martin, A. (2011) Gender and management on Spanish SMEs: an empirical analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(14), 2852-2873.
Motowidlo, S., Borman, W. and Schmit, M. (1997) A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83
Nielsen, S. and Huse, M. (2010) The contribution of women on boards of directors: going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2), 136- 148.
Paludi, M. (2012) Managing diversity in today’s workplace. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Ruiz-Jimenez, J. and Fuentes-Fuentes, M. (2013) Management capabilities, innovation, and gender diversity in the top management team: an empirical analysis in technology- based SMEs. BRQ Business Research Quarterly. doi:10.1016/j.brq.2015.08.003
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2015) Research methods for business students. London: Pearson.
Simons, S. and Rowland, K. (2011). Diversity and its impact on organisational performance: the influence of diversity constructions on expectations and outcomes. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 6(3), 171-183.
Suk, J. (2015, April 1). A way to legitimise corporate governance. The New York Times. [online] Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/01/the- effect-of-women-on-corporate-boards/a-way-to-legitimize-corporate-governance [accessed 30 March 2016]
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R. and Singh, V. (2009) Women directors on corporate boards: a review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 320- 337.
Vinnicombe, S. (Ed.) (2008) Women on corporate boards of directors: international research and practice. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
