UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
MASTER THESIS
Final version
Gender diversity in Top Management Teams:
Effective change strategies for promoting gender equality
Executive Programme in Management Studies –
Strategy Track
Marieke van der Linden
(11000597)
June 30, 2016
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Marieke van der Linden who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Content
Content ... 3
Abstract ... 4
Introduction ... 5
1. Theoretical framework ... 11
1.1 Top Management Team Diversity ... 11
Women and career advancement ... 13
1.2 Human Resource Management ... 14
A process of change ... 16
1.3 Gender diversity practices ... 17
Women Development Programs ... 18
Work – Life Balance Practices ... 20
Gender Diversity Targets ... 21
1.4 Organizational culture ... 24
2. Methodology ... 28
2.1 Research question and hypotheses ... 28
2.2 Data collection and sample ... 28
2.3 Variables ... 30 3. Results ... 33 3.1 Frequencies ... 33 3.2 Descriptives ... 33 3.3 Reliability ... 33 3.4 Factor analysis ... 34
4. Discussion and conclusion ... 41
4.1 Managerial Implications ... 43
4.2 Limitations and Future Research ... 44
References ... 45
Appendix I: Overview total set of Gender Diversity Measures ... 50
Appendix II: Gender Diversity Measures Rating Form (in Dutch) ... 51
Appendix III: Questionnaire (in Dutch) ... 52
Appendix IV: Descriptives ... 56
Abstract
Attention for gender diversity in top management is growing, but gender equality in Top Management Teams is proving very difficult to achieve and women are still underrepresented across all industries and at a global level. This research focuses on the change process towards gender diversity and the quantitative effects of gender diversity measures on gender diversity in Top Management Teams. Based on Strategic Management, Human Resource literature and organizational practice 27 gender diversity measures are derived and categorized in three sub dimensions: Women Development Programs (WDP) (e.g. training and coaching), Work-Life Balance practices (WLB) (e.g. child care, parental leave and flexibility) and Gender Diversity Targets (GDT) (e.g. quota’s and targets). It is argued that WDP, WLB and GDT have a positive influence on gender diversity in Top Management Teams. Organizational Culture, in addition, is investigated as a moderator between gender diversity measures and gender diversity in Top Management Teams. Significant evidence from a dataset of 167 small, medium and large sized Dutch firms validated that Gender Diversity Targets positively affect gender diversity in Top Management Teams. Furthermore, the results and conclusions raise questions about the effectiveness of WDP and WLB practices and the interaction effect of organizational culture. This study contributes to gender diversity research by showing the quantitative effects of gender diversity measures and by recognizing the importance of Gender Diversity Targets in implementing change strategies in order to enhance gender diversity in Top Management Teams.
Key words: gender diversity, gender equality, top management teams, women development programs, work-life balance practices, gender diversity targets, organizational culture, clan culture, adhocracy culture, change management, human resource management.
Introduction
“A woman will be really the equal to man, if one day, an incompetent woman is designated to an important position.” - Francoise Giroud (1916-2003)
The subject of gender equality and women in top management is a growing area of research. Scholars (e.g. Carter et al, 2003; Adams and Ferreira, 2009; Francoeur et al, 2007; Benschop and Verloo, 2011), international organizations (World Economic Forum, European Commission), consultancy companies (e.g. McKinsey) and non-profit organizations (e.g. Catalyst) contribute to research on this topic. Most research shows that momentum for progress on gender diversity in the top of organizations has increased, but that women are still underrepresented in boardrooms and top management, across all industries and at a global level. In Europe, women make up only 4% of CEO positions, 14% of executive positions and 22% of non-executive positions (European Commission database on Women and Men in Decision-Making, 20151). In the Netherlands, the proportion of senior management roles held by women is about 18% (Grant Thornton International Business Report, 2015).
Argumentation for a higher amount of women in top management is widespread. In terms of ethical considerations, there is a clear values-based case for gender equality. Women make up half of the world’s population and deserve equal access to health, education, economic participation and earning potential and political decision-making power (World Economic Forum, 2015). As described in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, gender equality is the view that both men and women should receive equal treatment and not
1 The companies covered are the largest publicly listed companies in in each of the 28 EU Member States.
Publicly listed means that the shares of the company are traded on the stock exchange. The “largest” companies are taken to be the members (max.50) of the primary blue-chip index, which is an index maintained by the stock exchange covering the largest companies by market capitalisation and/or market trades. Only companies which are registered in the country concerned are counted.chip index, which is an index maintained by the stock exchange covering the largest companies by market capitalisation and/or market trades. Only companies which are registered in the country concerned are counted.
be discriminated against based on their gender (United Nations, 1997). Gender diversity, in general, is a term referring to how different genders are represented in a relevant setting.
The most important argument for female representation in top management comes, however, from the growing consensus among companies that gender diversity in boards is a competitive advantage (Dezsö and Ross, 2012; Campbell and Mínguez-Vera, 2008). Many scholars have tested a direct relationship between the number or ratio of women in boards or Top Management Teams and firm financial performance (e.g. Carter et al., 2003; Adams and Ferreira, 2009; Francoeur et al, 2007). In addition, a series of Catalyst studies (2004, 2007, 2011) - a non-profit organization with a mission to expand opportunities for women and business - has elaborately shown that companies that achieve diversity in their management and on their corporate boards attain better financial results, on average, than other companies.
Despite the strong case for gender diversity in Top Management Teams, gender equality is still proving very difficult to achieve. In practice, organizational change towards gender equality in top management is very slow. McKinsey developed a database of 12 countries around the world covering 7 years of whom they analyze the composition of the corporate boards and executive committees. The percentage of women in corporate boards in Norway - the highest performing country in this regard - decreased from 35% in 2011 to 34% in 2013. The lowest rates for women on the executive level are in Asian countries: with Japanese companies at only 1%. In Sweden and the United Kingdom 27% and 17% of the corporate boards is female, compared to 25% and 16% respectively in 2011 (McKinsey, 20132). Women are still highly outnumbered in higher ranks. Hence, there is an urgent case
for change.
The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of gender diversity measures on gender equality in Top Management Teams (TMT). Top Management Teams, in this
2 Countries covered are Norway, Sweden, France, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom, United
study, are referring to the executive- boardrooms of organizations; the people that are involved in management and decision making processes (i.e. the senior management or the C-level executives – for example CFO, CEO, COO, CIO, CSO). Because multiple corporate board structures are used around the world (two-tier- versus unitary systems), only the highest executive decision-making body (TMT) is taken into account in this study. Gender diversity in Top Management Teams, therefore, refers to the proportion of men and women who occupy an executive board member positions in an organization.
While much research is done on why we need more gender diversity in top management and boardrooms (e.g. Carter et al., 2003; Adams and Ferreira, 2009; Francoeur et al, 2007; Catalyst, 2004, 2007, 2011 and McKinsey 2007-2013), less research is done on
how organizations can effectively move towards more gender equality and what exactly is
needed to bring about effective gender change in the leadership of organizations. Studies that do measure the efficacy of gender diversity or consider the (quantitative) effects of gender diversity measures are limited. Most studies instead focus on the reactions of men and women towards these policies. Many studies are based on self-reports about the experiences of women themselves or are based on just one, or a small number of specific measures (e.g. childcare) (for example: Aberson 2007; Camp et al, 1997).
Yet Kalev et al. (2006) conducted a fixed-effects analysis of longitudinal data on the workforce composition of 708 establishments to assess changes in managerial composition after the adoption of diversity practices. However, they narrowed their research to only 7 diversity measures and did not focus on gender diversity in specific. In addition, the research was conducted over a long period (1971-2002) in which the labor market and society changed significantly with regard to women’s emancipation. Jansen et al. (2001) investigated the effect of 105 different human resource practices on increasing or decreasing the number of men and women working on the highest levels. However, their research focused solely on two
organizations (divided in different business units) and their findings showed mixed results (the initial gender ratio was proven to have the largest effect on the advancement of men and women, but they could not find any effect of the other practices).
This research focuses, therefore, on a significant amount of contemporary organizations and the quantitative effects of the gender diversity measures undertaken by these organizations on the composition of the Top Management Teams. It integrates Strategic Management (e.g. Top Management Team Diversity) and Human Resource Management (HRM) in the context of change management and gender equality perspectives. Achieving increased gender diversity in Top Management Teams is a strategic issue in the sense that it can help organizations to be more sustainable in the long run (e.g. higher firm performance, team performance and increased innovation). Managing this process successfully, therefore, is a strategic asset and can be seen as a ‘journey of change’. Human Resource Management is an integrative approach which assumes a two-way linkage between the organizational strategies on the one hand and the individual needs of the employees on the other hand (Janssen, 2001; Beer and Spector, 1985, Lundy, 1994). Different perspectives on gender equality and implementing change are reviewed with regard to the potential effects of gender diversity measures since this can result in different levels of resistance and effectiveness (e.g. Ely and Meyerson, 2000; Benschop and Verloo, 2011, Walby, 2005; Levy and Merrt, 2986; Weick and Quinn, 1999; Huy and Mintzberg, 2003).
The study is built on the underlying assumption that gender diversity measures within organizations enhance change and create gender diversity in Top Management Teams. From the literature and organizational practices, in total 27 (HR) gender diversity measures are summarized. In order to study the effect of every separate practice, a very large sample would have been necessary. Therefore, the number of practices had to be reduced and the practices were categorized according their HR domain (development, hygiene or support), equality
perspective (sameness, difference or transformation) and type and tempo of change (first order or second order and continuous, systematic or episodic). This resulted in three different sub dimensions: Women Development Programs (WDP) (e.g. training and coaching), Work-life Balance Practices (WLB) (e.g. child care, parental leave and flexibility) and Gender Diversity Targets (GDT) (e.g. quota’s and voluntary targets). The three sub dimensions and their effect on gender diversity in Top Management Teams are examined separately in this study. In addition, a flexible organizational culture is added and investigated as a moderator. As a consequence, the study seeks to answer, from an empirical standpoint, the following question: To what extend do Women Development Programs, Work-Life Balance practices
and Gender Diversity Targets increase gender diversity in Top Management Teams?
Significant evidence from a dataset of 167 small, medium and large sized Dutch firms was gathered to investigate the impact of the gender diversity measures on the proportion of female managers in the Top Management Team. Survey data completed by HR-professionals representing these organizations was matched with information on the managerial composition derived from annual records and company websites, creating a comprehensive dataset. The findings validated that Gender diversity in Top Management Teams is positively influenced by Gender Diversity Targets. Women Development Programs, Work-Life Balance practices and industry and organization size, on the other hand, do not have a significant effect on gender diversity in Top Management Teams. All proposed scenarios regarding the influence of a flexible organization culture on the effectiveness on gender diversity measures were statistically unsupported.
This study delivers novel insights to the gender diversity research on top management. In addition to the abundant research that is done on the sources of inequality in top management, this study contributes to the little research that is done on the efficacy and quantitative effects of gender diversity measures on the composition of Top Management
Teams. By proving the importance of Gender Diversity Targets, it delivers important (strategic) managerial implications with regard to change strategy and gender diversity policy within organizations. Evidence is provided for implementing Gender Diversity Targets as an effective change strategy to enhance gender diversity in the top of organizations. Targets and quota are revealed to have the power to force the organization towards change, regardless the existing policies, culture and leadership styles. As a consequence, the findings support a theory of episodic and disruptive change that is needed to create a breakthrough in achieving gender diversity in Top Management Teams.
The study is structured as follows. The first section provides the theoretical framework based on Strategic Management theory, Human Resource literature and gender equality and change management perspectives. The second section covers the research methodology, the design of the study and a discussion of the variables. The third chapter covers the development of the new scale by using factor analysis and reveals the results from the empirical study. The final section covers the discussion and conclusions, managerial implications and suggestions for further research.
1. Theoretical framework
1.1 Top Management Team Diversity
Strategic management involves the formulation and implementation of the major goals and initiatives taken by a company's top management, based on consideration of resources and an assessment of the internal and external environments in which the organization competes (Nag et al., 2007). Top Management Teams, in this study, refer to the executive- boardrooms of organizations; the people that are involved in management and decision making processes (i.e. the senior management or the C-level executives – for example CFO, CEO, COO, CIO, CSO). Top Management Teams are composed of the key managers in the organization who are responsible for selecting and implementing the firm’s strategy. Whereas traditional strategic management theory emphasizes mainly economic and technological processes or information processes, Top management Team Theory (TMTT) mainly focuses on the relationship between the demographic characteristics and heterogeneity of Top Management Teams (based on a cognitive psychology perspective) and organizational outcomes (Hambrick and Mason, 1984).
Many theorists have discussed diversity within Top Management Teams and the relationship with organizational performance. According to Top Management Team Theory and Upper Echelons Theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) organizational outcomes — strategic choices and performance levels — are partially predicted by managerial background characteristics. The outcome of an organization, therefore, is a reflection of its top managers who are of great importance in strategic decisions. More specifically, the quality of the decisions of the Top Management Teams influences organizational performance (Amason, 1996). Various studies have found a positive association between Top Management Team Diversity and performance, indicating that diversity may enhance the range of perspectives,
cognitive resources, and overall problem-solving capacity of the team (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Hambrick et. al, 1996;). Hence, there is a strong argument to promote diversity of leadership behaviors.
The academic debate on the strategic importance of women corporate directors in specific (e.g. female members of Top Management Teams) is widely recognized and still open. Nielsen and Huse (2010) focused on gender diversity and Top Management Teams and found that the ratio of women directors is positively associated with board strategic control. Positive effects of women directors on board effectiveness were mediated through increased board development activities, a positive influence on decision-making and through decreased level of conflict.
In addition, many scholars have demonstrated a direct relationship between the number or ratio or women in boardrooms and firm financial performance. One of the first empirical evidences examining whether board diversity is associated with improved financial value was presented by Carter et al. in 2003. Carter et al. used a sample of 638 Fortune 1000 firms and found a positive relationship between board diversity (measured by the presence of women and minorities) and firm value (Carter et al, 2003). Although the research was large-scale and highly promising, it did not give a clear conclusion on the effect of a greater participation of women alone on firm value. Francoeur et al (2008) specifically investigated the relationship between gender diversity and financial performance. Their results indicated that half of the largest Canadian firms (FP500) firms operating in complex environments do generate positive and significant abnormal returns when they have a high proportion of women in both their management and governance systems (Francoeur et al, 2008). Adams and Ferreira (2009) made an important contribution to the existing research by looking at S&P US firms. They found that female directors have a significant impact on board inputs and firm outcomes, however, solely in firms that otherwise have weak governance (Adams
and Ferreira, 2009). In addition, a series of Catalyst studies (2004, 2007, 2011) has elaborately shown that companies that achieve diversity in their management and on their corporate boards attain better financial results, on average, than other companies. They found that companies with the most women board directors outperformed those with the least on return on sales (ROS) by 16% and return on invested capital (ROIC) by 26% (Catalyst, 2011). Hence, having a good gender balance in Top Management Teams brings, among other things, different perspectives to strategic decision-making and improves business performance. As a consequence, promoting leadership variety and gender diversity is of strategic importance and makes fundamental business sense. This is further encouraged by the research of Mckinsey (2008), which shows that today’s companies lack the most effective leadership behaviors to meet future challenges and macro-economic development in the world. Some leadership behaviors such as “inspiration”, “participative decision making” and “expectation and rewards”, which are more attributed to women than by men in management teams, prove to support corporate performance and will become a key factor in meeting the business challenges of the near future (McKinsey, 2008). It is, therefore, in a company’s interest to attract, retain and advance women in their Top Management Teams.
Women and career advancement
The process of advancement of women into managerial positions in contemporary organizations is, however, still not fully understood and the theories used to explain managerial career advancement of women are diverse, distinct and specific. In addition, progress over the past several decades in the career advancement of women to top management roles has slowed considerably in recent years (Ibarra et al., 2010). The senior management in organizations reflects a highly white-male dominated environment, where career advancement of women often involves adopting masculine traits such as competitiveness and aggressiveness. Even among recent graduates from business schools, the
progress of the careers of women lags behind the progress of the careers of men (Ibarra et al., 2010).
Barriers to career advancement into senior management roles reported by women often include difficulties in combining work and domestic responsibilities and the demand of total availability (McKinsey, 2013). Other barriers include being a woman and encountering gender-based stereotypes, exclusion from formal networks, lack of role models, and an inhospitable organizational culture (Catalyst, 2004a). These can also be described by the term “glass ceiling”, which refers to an almost invisible barrier that prevents women from moving up to senior management.
Despite the slow progress, numerous reports show that women’s ambitions are just as high as the ambitions of men. Research of McKinsey (2013) along 1,400 managers from companies across the globe and from diverse industries, shows that 79% of the women surveyed had the desire to reach a top management position (“C-suite role”). Women also expressed the willingness to compromise on their personal lives to realize their ambitions to become a member of the Top Management Team (McKinsey, 2013). The research showed also that women are much less certain then men that they will actually reach the top: only 69 % of the midlevel or senior women surveyed were confident that they will reach a top management position, compared with 83 % of the men.
1.2 Human Resource Management
An integrative approach is needed to breach the glass ceiling that persists at the top of organizations and to enhance gender diversity in Top Management Teams. Although the strategic agenda on gender diversity in top management aligns for a great deal with the managerial discourse about organizational performance (numerous studies validates that diversity in top management is associated with improved financial value), there is also a
potential risk of ‘losing gender’ to the dominance of (daily) business issues. Especially when targeted organizational routines serve the interests of those in power, business issues may dominate over gender issues (Ely and Meyerson, 2000).
Human Resource Management (HRM, or simply HR) is an integrative approach in which a two-way linkage is assumed between the organizational strategy on the one hand and the individual need of the employees on the other hand (Janssen, 2001; Beer and Spector, 1985, Lundy, 1994). The field of Human Resource Management focuses on achieving corporate strategy through the effective management of people in organizations. The essence of HRM is that separate personnel actions are consistently linked and integrated in order to reach a strategic goal (Truss and Gratton, 1994; Wright and McMahan 1992; Jansen et al, 2011). In the literature, there are many classifications of different HR domains. In this study, the classification by Jansen et al. (2011) into four different HR domains will be used; staffing (e.g. recruitment and selection), development (e.g. training and coaching), hygiene (e.g. basic infrastructure such as parental leave and logistical flexibility) and support (e.g. facilitating climate and stimulating culture).
An important goal of HRM is therefore the optimal use of the potential of all personnel categories, including male and female employees (Truss and Gratton, 1994; Wright and McMahan 1992; Jansen et al, 2011). Effective Human Resource Management takes care of the optimal link between people, satisfaction, and productivity. This could result in a higher quality of work life, higher productivity, and an improved readiness for change. As a consequence, corporations need to ensure that their human resource functions are gender neutral and performance focused, so that they do not hold women back in their professional development
A process of change
Implementing an integrative approach on gender diversity is, however, a change process that can be seen as a ‘journey of change’. From the change management literature, different types and tempos of change can be distinguished: first order- versus second order change, and continuous versus systematic or episodic change (e.g. Levy and Merry, 2986; Weick and Quinn, 1999; Huy and Mintzberg, 2003). First-order change consists of incremental adjustments (minor improvements) that do not change the system’s core, for example the implementation of practical childcare options. Second-order change, on the other hand, changes the deep structure of the organization and implies a radical shift (Levy and Merry, 1986). One can think of gender quotas as a second order change. Furthermore, an indented and planned type of change – also called episodic change – (Lewin, 1946; Kotter, 1995) can be distinguished by a continuous or systematic type of change (Weick and Quinn, 1991; Huy and Mintzberg, 2003). Whereas episodic change is discontinuous, infrequent and intentional, continuous change is incremental, evolving, constant and cumulative. Systematic change descends, like episodic change, from the top management, but is slower, less ambitious, more focused, and more carefully constructed and sequenced than dramatic or episodic change. Gender diversity practices imply different types and tempos of change and as a result also different levels of resistance and effectiveness. Resistance to change is typically strong when disruptive movements are implemented and/or change is focused on an organization’s cultural norms, beliefs, attitudes, and values. Dramatic, episodic and disruptive change can engender resistance, which can cause revolution within the organization (Huy and Mintberg, 2003).
How to change organizations towards gender equality in specific, is a topic that equality scholars and feminist organization scholars have been interested in for many years (e.g. Ely and Meyerson, 2000; Benschop and Verloo, 2011, Walby, 2005). Three main perspectives can be distinguished (Walby, 2005). Equality through sameness is based on the
collective level and strives for equal opportunities for men and women in the organization by dismantling structural barriers. Practices based on equality through sameness can be found in for example the support- and hygiene HR domain. Equal valuation of difference is an individual inclusion strategy primarily targeted at women. This approach comes from the liberal and individual perspective, which states that individuals rise and fall on their own merits. In other words, if women developed the right traits and skills, they would be better able to compete with men (Ely and Meyerson, 2000). Practices based on this equality approach can be found in the development HR domain and form mainly a continuous type of change. The perspective of transformation of gendered practices and standards sees gender as a core organizing principle that shapes social structures, knowledge and identities. Structural transformation strategies are represented to be ‘ideal’ and ‘transformative’ in the sense that they address and try to change gender as a structure (Benschop and Verloo, 2011). Practices within this approach do mainly arise within the support HR domain and eventually cause a deep, second-order type of change.
1.3 Gender diversity practices
HR-policies have the potential to create a level playing field by, for example, setting goals, reducing structural barriers, biases and by creating equal opportunities (Ely and Meyerson, 2000). Gender diversity practices, in this research, are organizational (HR) policies aimed to increase gender diversity in senior management. Lists of ‘best practices’ in diversity management are widespread. However, whereas there are numerous practices (mostly based on academic theories) that could enhance gender diversity, there has been little on the efficacy of these measures and policies. At best, ‘best practices’ are best guesses (Kalev et al, 2006).
In this study the effects of 27 gender diversity practices within three gender diversity dimensions are examined. Since the present study focuses on employees within organizations,
only gender diversity practices within the HR domains development, hygiene and support are examined. The gender diversity practices are categorized according their HR domain - development, hygiene or support - and equality perspective - sameness, difference or transformation. This resulted in the three different sub dimensions Women Development Programs (WDP) (e.g. training and coaching), Work-life Balance Practices (WLB) (e.g. child care, parental leave and flexibility) and Gender Diversity Targets (GDT) (e.g. quota’s and voluntary targets). The three sub dimensions are investigated in this study separately.
Women Development Programs
Women Development Programs are special programs for women that consist of one or more gender inclusion measures aimed at the individual level to support women’s careers and professional development. The measures are targeted at women solely and women are made responsible for their own inclusion. Women Development Programs can be reviewed as a continuous or systematic form of change and a form of equal valuation of differences. Relatively small steps (events, programs or courses) are implemented intentionally from the top-down level. Practices within Women Development Programs are, for example, leadership development programs for women, coaching and mentoring programs for women, female sponsorship and advocacy schemes for women, and internal women’s networks and forums.
Within the literature, considerable evidence suggests that investments in training produce beneficial organizational outcomes (Bartel, 1994; Knoke & Kalleberg, 1994; Russell et al., 1985) Studies that examine the actual relationship between development programs and career advancement are, however, limited. Certain factors however, appear to have an impact on managerial advancement to higher management positions.
A self-report study on the impact of participation by women academics in the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) program by McDade et al. (2004)
shows that perceived leadership capabilities increased significantly after participating. This implies that educating and training women’s skills for business and professional careers can enhance women’s career advancement and could increase the number of women in Top Management Teams. In addition, numerous business schools and leadership institutions provide women leadership programs with the intent to help women advance into more senior leadership roles. These programs claim to be effective in helping women to understand the rules of the game (as established by men), and to adapt the idea that they are ready for leadership roles (Ely et al.,2011). Supplementary, mentor programs are said to provide individual women with a personal mentor that helps with the development of women’s careers. Riley and Wrench (1985) found that women who had one or more mentor, reported greater job success and job satisfaction than women who did not have a mentor. With a mentor, it is argued, women are better able to understand the reality of the male-dominated business culture and get the sponsorship that they need to identify them as highly talented and to direct them in their career advancement. Special networks for women, at last, may help women to enter a male-dominated leadership culture and give them collective power and confidence to advocate and act for organization change (Bierema, 2005). Joining a formal women’s network has been stressed as vital in helping women navigate traditionally patriarchal environments (Catalyst, 1999).
Taking the perceived success of leadership programs, mentoring programs and networking events into account and considering the fact that Women Development Programs are no disruptive or revolutionary type of change, the following hypotheses will be put to test:
H1: Women development programs have a positive effect on gender diversity in top management teams.
Work – Life Balance Practices
A significant amount of research has been done on the sources of conflict between work and family roles and the effect on career advancement. In 2013 a research of McKinsey on gender diversity in top management showed that the ‘anywhere, anytime’ performance model is still an important roadblock for women to climb up to the top management and to enhance their career (McKinsey, 2013). In addition, career advancement is often hampered when a woman takes family leave or works part-time. As a consequence, many organizations have implemented a variety of Work-Life Balance (WLB) policies and practices during the last decade to address work–family conflict issues and to help employees manage the balance between work and family demands.
In general, Work-Life balance practices can be defined as organizational practices that empowers employees to split time and energy between work and other important areas of their life successfully. Work-Life Balance Practices are largely policy-based: they include a number of actions targeted at the basic organizational policies and structures. This can be seen as first-order, systematic type of change. Work-Life Balance practices are targeted at all the employees of the organization, but from the standpoint of the traditional roles between men (breadwinner) and women (household keeper), women will generally more benefit than men. Examples of Work-Life Balance arrangements include flexible time arrangements, childcare facilities, logistical flexibility (i.e. remote working) and programs for smooth transition before, during and after maternity leave.
Work-Life Balance practices have the potential to create a level playing field by reducing structural barriers and biases (Ely and Meyerson, 2000). Lyness et al. (2008) found that managers who were rated higher in work-life balance, were rated higher in career advancement potential than managers who were rated lower in work-life balance. In addition, Straub (2007) compared companies and their involvement with work‐life balance practices
and policies in 14 European countries and validated that one work-life balance practice in specific - the payment of an additional amount for maternity leave actually - enhanced the career advancement of women to senior management positions. Recently, Shagvaliyeva and Yazdanifard (2014) validated that measures such as flexible working hours balance the ‘anytime, anywhere’ performance model that still exists in many organizations and promote and facilitate work-life balance. As a consequence, taking career breaks into account should prevent a negative impact on the pay or career paths of women and therefore is said to help to remove the glass ceiling (Mckinsey, 2008).
From a change perspective, Work-life Balance practices are relatively easy to implement and therefore can be seen as small wins (Ely and Meyerson (2000). Work-life balance practices mainly target small organizational policies and structures. A reason to prefer these small changes over big ones is the issue of resistance to change. Resistance to change is typically strong when an organization’s cultural norms, beliefs, attitudes, and values are the target of change effort, which is for example the case with projects that target the gender bias in organizational routines (Benschop and Verloo, 2006). Work-Life Balance practices are relatively minor adjustments, do not change the system’s core and are therefore reviewed as a potential successful small-wins strategy. Taking the above into account, the following hypothesis will be put to test:
H2: Work-Life Balance practices have a positive effect on gender diversity in top management teams.
Gender Diversity Targets
Gender Diversity Targets (GDT) are defined as organizational targets (objectives) aimed to measure and increase gender diversity in the workplace and or top management. Targets are specific measurable objectives, generally set by an organization at their own discretion, with
discrete timeframes in which they are to be achieved. Consequences for not meeting a target may be set and enforced as the organization sees fit. Gender Diversity Targets can be implemented at any level within an organization and can be seen as a top-down, episodic, disruptive and second-order form of change. They are part of radical individual-inclusion strategy aimed at women in specific.
Gender Diversity Targets, and especially quotas, are very much debated. Quotas are relatively radical measures that establish a fixed percentage or number for the representation of a specific category of persons – in this case women. These can be mandatory (legislation) or voluntary (like voluntary quotas or soft targets). The secondary effects of targets and quotas, however, are often viewed as unacceptable by both men and women. Women may be appointed in a management position, even when they are not the most qualified candidates, and men can become resentful of the special treatment that follows for women. As a consequence, quotas often involve a changing process of power and therefore invoke resistance (Benschop and Verloo, 2011).
Nevertheless, various studies indicate the positive effect of quota on gender diversity. The introduction for gender quota in some countries in politics, for example, has increased the representation of women significantly. In countries such as Rwanda, Argentina, South Africa and Costa Rica gender quotas have led to historical leaps in the representation of women in parliaments and regional or local coalitions (Franceschet et al., 2012). In addition, numerous consultancy firms claim that organizations that set targets are more likely to succeed at increasing their gender diversity (Workplace Gender Equality Agency, 2016). Quotas and targets have the potential to change the composition of top management teams in a relatively short time. They can be a stimulant for change by starting the conversation, bringing awareness and driving actual change. Recent research by Tejesen and Aquilera (2015) shows that gender quota legislation significantly impacts the composition of boards of directors. In
Norway in 2015 women comprised 42 % of the board directorships, which meets the government requirement of 40 % that was set up in 2003. Gender quotas force firms to respond quickly to identify, develop, promote and retain suitable female talent for the corporate leadership structure (Terjesen and Aquilera, 2015).
The 2015 monitor of the Dutch foundation ‘Talent to the Top’ shows as well that organizations that have signed the Charter Talent to the Top (including concrete Gender Diversity Targets), easily meet the (voluntary) statutory target of 30% (Commissie Monitoring Talent naar de Top, 2016). Over 2015, they reported 43% women in the boards of direction (i.e. Top Management Teams) and 35.6% in the supervisory boards. Companies that did not sign the Charter showed numbers of only 14.2% women in the boards of direction and 17.8% in the supervisory board. The reasoning behind this is that Charter organizations do what they have signed: they develop policies to achieve gender diversity at the top of their organization and the proportion of women at the top is rising faster in organizations where gender diversity policy is better developed. Furthermore, gender monitoring and transparency of numbers are often cited as an important first step to understand the proportion of female employees being recruited, developed and promoted. For an organization to improve female career advancement, it needs to collect data on women participation and representation across all levels of its workforce.
As a consequence, one can argue that a disruptive form of episodic change is needed to change the conversation and the composition of top management teams in a relatively short time. Dramatic change implemented from the top of the organization (or even higher; at a national policy level) can create a break through within organizations in all sorts of industries (Benschop and Verloo, 2011). Taking the effect and power of quotas and targets (such as in Norway) into account, the following hypotheses will be put to test:
H3: Gender diversity targets have a positive effect on gender diversity in top management teams.
In the figure below the three gender diversity measures (Women Development Programs, Work-Life Balance practices and Gender Diversity Targets) are presented with regard to their HR domain (development, hygiene or support), equality perspective (sameness, difference or transformation) and type and tempo of change (first order or second order and continuous, systematic or episodic).
Fig 1. Gender diversity practices with regard to the type and tempo of change, equality perspective and HR domain
1.4 Organizational culture
Organizational culture is an additional critical factor in increasing gender diversity in Top Management Teams. There are many different and competing definitions of "organizational culture" or “corporate culture”. Organizational culture, in this study, is seen as a pattern of shared values and beliefs that help its members to understand organizational functioning and provides them norms for behavior in the organization. Research of McKinsey shows that
corporate (or organizational) culture in relation to gender equality in boardrooms is an important success factor within the change process (McKinsey, 2013). An inclusive culture that welcomes a diversity of leadership styles can increase gender diversity in top management.
A commonly accepted conceptualization of organizational culture, which will be used in this study, is the Competing Values Framework based on the work of Quinn et al. (1881, 1999, 2005). The framework assumes that organization´s cultures can be distinguished by their dominant organizational attributes, bonding mechanisms, leadership styles, and overall strategic emphases (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). The framework has two broad dimensions:
flexibility and discretion versus stability and control; and internal focus and internal integration versus external focus and differentiation. Four different culture types result in this
framework: clan, hierarchy, market and adhocracy. The Clan Culture type organization concentrates on flexibility and is held together through employee loyalty, morale, and commitment. The Adhocracy Culture type forms a dynamic and creative place to work with a high degree of flexibility and individuality. The Hierarchy Culture type organization focuses on a need for stability and control. Formal rules and policies are closely followed. The Market Culture type organization focuses on stability and control in which members are goal-oriented and concerned with planning, performance, and efficiency (Cameron and Quinn, 2005; Denison and Spreitzer, 1991; Dwyer et.al, 2003). Although a firm’s culture will be composed of values that can be found in each of the four types, according to Quinn et al. every organization has one dominant culture.
Fig. 2 The Competing Values Framework by Cameron and Quinn
In the academic literature, several studies indicate the influence that firm’s organizational culture may have on diversity in Top Management Teams. Dwyer et al. (2001) found that the effect of gender diversity in the Top Management Team is moderated by the firm’s strategic orientation and the organizational culture in which it resides. Clan culture type’s dominant attributes of cohesiveness, participation, and teamwork would provide an environment conducive to a diverse work group. The orientation on employees and the emphasis on satisfaction, consensual problem solving and decision-making would serve to further support a diverse work group (Dwyer et. al, 2003). Tseng (2010) argued that clan culture emphasizes the long-term benefit of human resources development with a focus on high cohesion and morale and diverse work group. Similar to the clan culture type, the adhocracy culture type is mainly characterized by flexibility, spontaneity, and individualism. These traits are likely to create an open-minded environment and provide a context in which a diversity of opinions, ideas and persons (and therefore female leadership) can thrive. In addition, organizational culture may influence women’s confidence levels in reaching Top Management Positions. The Women Matter survey of McKinsey (2013) showed that some collective drivers in the organizational environment such as compatibility of the
organizational culture with gender diversity or the compatibility of women’s leadership and communication styles with the prevailing model, may give women a higher confidence in their chances of success.
Taking the above into account, organizational cultures with a high degree of flexibility (clan and adhocracy type) are assumed to have a positive effect on gender diversity measures on gender diversity in top management. As a consequence, the following hypotheses will be put to test:
H1b: The effect of Women Development Programs on gender diversity in Top Management Teams is positively moderated by a flexible organizational culture;
H2b: The effect of Work-Life Balance practices on gender diversity in Top Management Teams is positively moderated by a flexible organizational culture;
H3b: The effect of Gender Diversity Targets on gender diversity in Top Management Teams is positively moderated by a flexible organizational culture.
2. Methodology
2.1 Research question and hypotheses
This research aims to gain insight in what are effective strategies to increase gender diversity in Top Management Teams (TMT) by answering the following research question: To what
extend do Women Development Programs, Work-Life Balance practices and Gender Diversity Targets increase gender diversity in Top Management Teams? The conceptual design of this
study can be captured as following:
Fig. 3: Conceptual model
2.2 Data collection and sample
To test the hypotheses introduced, cross sectional data was gathered through an online survey via Qualtrics. Email addresses were collected online and via HR-networks, and the targeted HR-professionals were electronically invited through emailing to participate. Non-respondents received a subsequent reminder after one week by email. The questions in the survey were answered by making use of a Likert scale (including the following choices:
strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) and a constant sum scale (dividing three times 100 points between a set of 4 options to show the value or importance on each option). The use of a constant sum scaling permitted the collection of “ratio” data, meaning that the data was able to express the relative value or importance of the options.
Because the derived gender diversity practices can be seen as a set of HRM distinctive activities (functions and processes that are aimed at attracting, directing and maintaining an organization’s human resources) the stated hypotheses on effective measures for increasing gender diversity in Top Management Teams were tested by looking at HR advisors, managers and directors. HR-professionals are centrally located in the organization and have a broad oversight and knowledge of the (practices within the) organization. Therefore, the most profound way to investigate the organizational efforts on increasing gender diversity in Top Management Teams was through the experiences, knowledge and beliefs of HR-professionals within unique organizations (i.e. the targets).
The sample population included 500-800 respondents from Dutch organizations. This sample covered HR-professionals operating in small, medium and large enterprises in a broad range of industries. Respondents were mainly senior HR-professionals as they are expected to have the best knowledge about the variables of interest. Email addresses of HR-professionals were collected by searching HR contact information on company websites, LinkedIn, Google and via HR departments within the organizations of the personal connections. To prevent to have little variance in the data, not more than HR-professional was targeted at an organization. Following three weeks of email addresses collection, in total 750 HR-professionals were electronically invited to participate through emailing. Non-respondents received a subsequent reminder after one week. After two weeks, a second reminder was sent. The two reminders contributed significantly in enhancing the response percentage. In addition, a link to the survey was shared on social media platforms such as Facebook,
Linkedin and Yammer with an appeal on HR-professionals to take part in the survey. The overall combination of emailing and sharing via social media resulted in a response rate of about 20%. After checking for missing values and outliers 167 respondents remained representing 167 companies.
To reduce the risk of common method bias, the self-reported data from the Likert scale and constant sum scale was combined with more objective data on the gender structure of Top management Teams within the participating organizations. By checking and analyzing annual reports and websites of organizations, primary data about the number of women of the total number of people in the Top management Team was gathered and entered into the software program SPSS.
2.3 Variables
Accordingly, the following constructs were measured in this study: Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams, Women Development Programs (WDP), Work-life Balance Practices (WLB), Gender Diversity Targets (GDT) and Organizational Culture (OC). The core constructs of this study are measured by a newly developed multi-item scale (e.g. gender diversity measures in three different sub dimensions: WDP, WLB and GDT). This will be discussed in detail later on. Women Development Programs (WDP) are defined as programs offering help for women to develop their skills for business and professional careers. Work-Life Balance practices (WLB) are defined as organizational practices that empowers employees to split time and energy between work and other important areas of their life successfully. Gender Diversity Targets (GDT) are defined as organizational targets (objectives) aimed to measure and increase gender diversity in the workplace. Gender diversity in Top Management Teams is measured as the ratio of women directors (the proportion of women directors expressed as a percentage of the total top management team
size; e.g. the percentage of women on the top management team – “C-level or ‘C-suite’) and used as a measure of gender diversity.
Furthermore, an established multi-item scale that was validated in a previous study is used to measure Organizational Culture (OC). A three dimension version of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) of the Competing Values Framework (CVF) developed by Quinn and his colleagues was used to measure 4 different organization culture perceptions: clan culture, adhocracy culture, market culture and hierarchy culture (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983; Yeung, Brockbank, and Ulrich, 1991; Cameron and Quinn, 2005; Cameron and Quinn, 2012). The scale identifies the relative influence of 4 culture types (adhocracy culture, bureaucracy culture, clan culture, market culture) that comprise a firm’s organizational culture. The CVF has been widely used in past research and acceptable levels of reliability and validity have been reported across numerous studies (Cameron and Quinn, 2005).
Development of gender diversity measures scale
From the literature and organizational practice 27 different gender diversity practices were derived and pre-classified into three domains aimed at different organizational levels: Women Development Programs, Work-Life Balance practices and Gender Diversity Targets. These items and their classifications were discussed with people representing the actual population of interest. In total, three qualitative interviews with HR-experts were executed with the objective to help examine, define and clearly formulate the items. Subsequently, the 27 items were pretested by a preliminary assessment of content validity. In preparation for subsequent content validity assessments of the three sub dimensions, the content validity assessment technique of Schriesheim and colleagues 1993 was used (Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner and Lankau, 1993). The preliminary pool of 27 measures was presented to a panel of
ten advanced undergraduates and graduates who were asked to indicate which of the three sub dimensions each item was measuring. Because sorting is a cognitive task that requires intellectual ability rather than work experience, the use of students at this stage of scale development is appropriate (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990). The panel was provided with the definitions on top of the rating form. Also an “unclassified” category was used for items that are determined not to fit one of the definitions. Alternate forms with items in varying order were used to maximize the efficacy of the sorting process. The agreement index - the percentage of respondents who correctly classify an item was determined at 80%, which meets the minimum of 75% (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter, 1991). A total of 24 measures had an acceptable agreement index of 80% and were retained for subsequent use and testing. There were 8 items measuring Women Development Programs, 8 items measuring Work-Life
Balance practices and 8 items measuring Gender Diversity Targets. This resulted in a final
list of 24 measures (see also appendix 1).
3. Results
3.1 Frequencies
A check of frequencies was done to examine if there were any errors in the data. There were no errors found. There was dealt with missing values by excluding cases list wise. As a consequence, only cases that had no missing data in any variable were analyzed.
3.2 Descriptives
Subsequently, descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis and normality tests were performed. No extreme points in the data were found, however for the total measure of Work Life Balance practices 4 outliers were found (ID numbers 2, 42, 125 and 156). For the total measure of Gender Diversity Targets 1 outlier (ID number 99) was found. As a consequence, these five cases were extracted from the data file. For one Work-Life Balance item Substantial Negative Skewness (values -1 to -2) was found (see appendix 4). Moderate Negative Skewness (values -.5 to -1) was found for 2 items of Women Development Programs and 4 items of Work-life Balance practices. For 5 items of Gender Diversity Targets and 3 items of Women Development Programs Moderate Positive Skewness was found. Considering that regression analyses is pretty robust for moderate deviations from normality in the case of moderate deviations (up to 2) and since the overall deviation is not extreme, there was stick to non-transformed variables. In addition, “with reasonably large samples, skewness will not make a substantive difference in the analysis” (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 74).
3.3 Reliability
Thirdly, reliability analyses have been done for of all items of the variables Women Development Programs, World Life Balance Practices, Gender Diversity Targets, the Clan
culture type and Adhocracy culture type. The items of the variable Women Development Programs showed high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .792. The corrected item-total correlations indicated that the items wdp2 (regular use of external coaches) and wdp7
(regular, individual contact with the HR department or management) had a low correlation
with the total score of the scale (.284 and .086). Because these items were not very much related to the final score and other items, the decision was made to delete these from the scale. This improved Cronbach’s Alpha from α = .748 to α = .792. The World Life Balance items showed reliability of Cronbach’s Alpha = .659. Based on all the 8 items Cronbach’s Alpha was α = .594. The corrected item-total correlations indicated that the items wlb3 (policy to
schedule meetings during office hours only) and wlb5 (practical childcare options) had a low
correlation with the total score of the scale (.000 and .235) and therefore were deleted from the scale. This resulted in Cronbach’s Alpha = .718. The Gender Diversity scale had high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .858. The corrected item-total correlations indicated that all the items had a correlation with a total score of the scale above .30. However, gdt5 (targets
for equal pay for men and women in similar positions) shows a relatively low corrected-item
correlation of .311 and deviated from the other items (all above .6). When gdt5 was deleted, the reliability was positively affected and Cronbach Aplha improved to α = .88. The Cronbach Alpha for the clan culture type was α=.824, for the adhocracy type α=.659, for the market type α=.706 and for the hierarchy type α=.816.
3.4 Factor analysis
Factor analysis was used to further define the scales for Women Development Programs,
World Life Balance Practices and Gender Diversity Targets. Factor analysis allows the
reduction of a set of observed variables to a smaller set of variables. This creates a more parsimonious representation of the original set of observations providing evidence of
construct validity (Guadagnoli and Velicer, 1988). The 19 remained items were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA). Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The variable wlb8 (the possibility to save hours/days), however, showed no correlations with another variables that was greater than 0.3. Therefore, the variable was removed from the analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was .843. This means it exceeds the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser 1970, 1974) and Barlett’s Test of Sphericity (Barlett 1954) reached statistical significance (value below .05), supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.
Principal components analysis revealed the presence of 4 components with an eigenvalue exceeding 1, explaining 34,5%, 11,8%, 9,4% and 6% of the variance respectively. These four components explained a total of 61,66% of the variance. Inspection of the screeplot revealed the (last) inflection point of the graph after the 4th component. Using Catell’s (1966) scree test, it was decided to retain 4 components for further investigation. Parallel analysis showed, however, 3 components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criterion values for a randomly generated data matrix of the same size (18 variables x 167 respondents). The results of this analysis are presented in table 1.
The three-component solution explained 56% of the total variance. A Varimax orthogonal rotation was employed to aid interpretability. The rotated solution exhibited a slightly ‘complex structure’ (Thurstone, 1947) with a few items (gdt2 and gdt3) loading on
Table 1
Comparison of eigenvalues from PCA and criterion values from parallel analysis
Component number Actual eigenvalue from PCA
Criterion value from parallel analysis Decision 1 6,209 1,6265 Accept 2 2,122 1,4930 Accept 3 1,686 1,3925 Accept 4 1,082 1,3212 Reject
the same components (1 and 2) and with higher loadings on component 2 (which indicated to have many items of Women Development Programs). To achieve a 'simple structure' the items gdt2 (organization sets itself concrete targets for the proportion of women in the
organization as a whole), gdt3 (organization specific targets are set up for the number of women in management positions) and wdp8 (organization uses a talent bank for women to manage internal vacancies) were deleted. As a consequence, the interpretation of the data was
consistent with the different gender diversity measures the questionnaire was designed to measure, with strong loadings of 5 Gender Diversity Targets items on Component 1, 5 Women Development Program items on Component 2 and 5 Work-Life Balance items on Component 3. Component loadings and communalities of the rotated solution are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Rotated Structure Matrix for PCA with Varimax Rotation of a Three Component Questionnaire
Items Rotated Component Coefficient
Comp. 1 Comp. 2 Comp. 3 Communalities
Target ratio promotion suitable women (gdt6) .844 .132 .016 .729 Target ratio training participation women (gdt7) .840 .053 .062 .712 Min. number of women on long- /short –lists (gdt4) .724 .229 .092 .585
Min. of one women selection procedure (gdt8) .711 .199 .138 .564 Internal quota women management positions (gdt1) .534 .388 .001 .436
Networking events for women (wdp3) .298 .779 -.027 .697
Management courses for women (wdp6) .420 .733 -.107 .725
Career courses (wdp4) -.041 .675 .258 .523
Mentoring programs (wdp5) .056 .605 .221 .418
Leadership development programs (wdp1) .358 .571 -.004 .454
Career flexibility (wlb2) .129 .105 .772 .619
Flexible parental leave (wlb6) -.086 .105 .655 .448
Logistical flexibility (wlb1) -.152 .268 .629 .491
Part-time opportunities in leadership roles (wlb7) .388 .064 .573 .484
Maternity leave programs (wlb4) .302 -.215 .572 .465
Note: major loadings for each item are bolded
As the final preliminary step, scale means have been computed for Women Development
Programs, World Life Balance Practices and Gender Diversity Targets and were coded as wdpTOT, wlbTOT and gdtTOT. In addition, total scale scores were calculated for Flexible Organizational Culture by adding up the total scores of ClanTOT (characa, gluea, succesa)
and AdhTOT (characb, glueb, succesb), which was coded OC Flex.
Correlations
Correlation analysis was done for all of the combinations of variables. Based on the correlation-matrix, gdtTOT shows a tendency to a positive relation with Ratio of women in TMT. With a Pearson correlation coefficient of r=0.220 and the significance value less than 0.01 it is the strongest correlation of Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams. ClanTOT and OCFlex also seem to have a tendency for a positive relationship with the Ratio of Women in TMT with r=0.207 and p <0.01 and r=.237 and p <0.01 respectively. Furthermore, OCFlex seems to have a tendency for a positive relationship with WlbTOT with r=.244 and p <0.01. Table 3
Means, Standard deviations, Correlation
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Industry 2,36 1,867 - 2. Organization size 2,76 1,088 .03 - 3. Ratio Women TMT ,3084 ,25351 .03 -.09 - 4.Women Development Programs 2,7653 ,80838 -1.11 .28** .04 (.77) 5.Work-Life Balance Practices 3,7030 ,56520 -1.13 .08 .17* .24** (.67) 6. Gender Diversity Targets 2,2012 ,69991 -.03 .09 .22** .49** .26** (.83) 7. Clan Culture 102,2036 48,25753 -.01 -.22** .21** -.09 .19* -.04 (.82) 8. Adhocracy culture 71,1557 32,12625 .07 -.25** .09 .20 .13 .18* -.13 (.66) 9. Flexible Organizational Culture 173,3593 54,29451 .03 -.34** .24** -.09 .24** .07 .81** .43** (.54) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (2-tailed). N = 167
Hypothesis testing - Multiple regression
Multiple regression was performed to investigate the ability of Women Development Programs, Work-Life Balance practices and Gender Diversity Targets to predict levels of gender diversity in Top Management Teams, after controlling for industry and organization size. In the first step of multiple regression two predictors were entered: industry and organization size. This model was not statistically significant F (2,166) = .78; p= > 0,05 and explained 0.9% of the variance of in gender diversity in Top Management Teams. After entry of Women Development Programs, Work-Life Balance practices and Gender Diversity Targets at step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 8,2% F (5,161) = 2,882; p= < .005. The introduction of Women Development Programs, Work-Life Balance practices and Gender Diversity Targets explained additional 7,3% variance in gender diversity in Top Management Teams, after controlling for industry and organization size (R2 Change = .073 F(3,161) = 4,253; p= < 0.05. In the final model, only 1 out of 3 predictor variables was statistically significant, with Gender Diversity Targets recording a Beta value of (β =.234; p= <0.01).
Consequently, Gender Diversity Targets have a positive impact on gender diversity in Top Management Teams when controlling for industry and organization size, like suggested in hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 1 and 2 are rejected, because no significant correlation between gender diversity in Top Management Teams and Women Development Programs and Work-Life Balance practices could be found, when controlling in each case for all other independent variables.
Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Model of gender diversity in Top Management Teams
Variable R R2 R2 Change B SE β t
Step 1 .097 .009
Industry .00 .01 .03 .36
