Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Second Glass Ceiling: Women’s Role in Supervisory Boards of German Firms

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Schmalenbach Business Review Aims and scope

Abstract

This study analyzes the role of women on supervisory boards of German companies. In particular, we investigate the likelihood of women to hold senior positions such as (vice) chair of the board and their membership in standing committees. Based on the logic of the lack of fit model, we argue that once women overcome the first glass ceiling and become board members, they still face a second glass ceiling preventing them from gaining senior board positions. We test our hypotheses using a sample of 103 parity co-determined and publicly quoted companies from 2009 to 2016. We find that women directors are underrepresented in senior board positions. This gap is particularly large and even increasing for the position of the board chair. It is also present for the position of the vice chair and (in the case of shareholder representatives) for memberships in standing committees except for the nomination committee. These findings are consistent with the presence of a second glass ceiling. Our study contributes to the literature on the prevalence of women in senior board positions. In particular, we provide novel evidence on the progress of women on boards in a two-tier system with co-determination. One potential implication of our study is that women’s influence on board decision-making might still be limited despite the recent increase of the number of women on boards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Norway and Sweden have a semi two-tier system. That means that companies have the choice whether the board includes only non-executive directors or both non-executive and executive directors. In Norway, the CEO may not be part of the board. In Sweden, only one executive director, usually the CEO, may be part of the board. Furthermore, Norway requires that one third of board members are employee representatives and Sweden requires two or three employee representatives on the board. Therefore, Norway and Sweden share similarities with the German two-tier system with employee representatives being required on the board for companies with more than 500 employees.

  2. Relatedly, Hoyt and Murphy (2016) mention a masculine environment as an additional factor mediating gender stereotype threat—a condition applicable to supervisory boards in Germany. For example, a study of German top executives revealed the existence of a mentality pattern supporting role incongruity of women in leadership (BMFSFJ 2010).

  3. Closely related, the study of Beamen et al. (2009) shows that exposure to female leadership reduces gender-based bias.

  4. Appendix Table 5 contains a full list of all companies included in the analysis.

  5. The difference in the number of observations between shareholder and employee representatives arises from the non-availability of age information in the sub-sample of employee representatives.

  6. While shareholder representatives are appointed to the board at the annual general meeting, employee representatives are elected by the employees of the firm (e. g., Plessis et al. 2017).

  7. There is considerable variation of board members in committee participation. For example, some shareholder representatives work in six committees, while almost 30% of shareholder representatives are not member of any committee.

  8. Adding up these six dummies yields the value for the variable number of committees.

  9. This procedure ensures an equal sample size across committees. Note that this procedure does not affect the variable number of committees.

  10. Note that summing up the displayed coefficients for shareholder representatives (respectively for employee representatives) yields the coefficient on the female dummy in the regression with the number of committees as the dependent variable, reported in Table 2.

References

  • Adams, Renée B., and Daniel Ferreira. 2009. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics 94(2):291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahern, Kenneth R., and Amy K. Dittmar. 2012. The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(1):137–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amanatullah, Emily T., and Michael W. Morris. 2010. Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(2):256–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnegger, Martin, and Christian Hofmann. 2014. Überprüfung des Zusammenhangs von Eigenschaften, Aufgaben und Vergütung von Aufsichtsräten deutscher Unternehmen. zfbf – Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 66(7):518–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaman, Lori, Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, Esther Duflo, Rohini Pande, and Petia Topalova. 2009. Powerful women: does exposure reduce bias? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(4):1497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilimoria, Diana, and Sandy K. Piderit. 1994. Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias. The Academy of Management Journal 37(6):1453–1477.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMFSFJ. 2010. Women in executive positions. Barriers and bridges. https://www.bmfsfj.de/blob/93878/24ef73d6200f47c4b5c25702af30bec4/frauen-in-fuehrungspositionen-englisch-data.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozhinov, Viktor. 2018. Stock price reactions to policies promoting women on boards: evidence from Germany. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3006020. Accessed 18 June 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brescoll, Victoria L. 2016. Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. Leadership Quarterly 27(3):415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunzell, Tor, and Eva Liljeblom. 2014. Chairmen’s perceptions of female board representation: a study on Nordic listed companies. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 33(6):523–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugeja, Martin, Zoltan Matolcsy, and Helen Spiropoulos. 2016. The association between gender-diverse compensation committees and CEO compensation. Journal of Business Ethics 139(2):375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case, Susan S. 1993. The collaborative advantage: the usefulness of women’s language to contemporary business problems. Business in the Contemporary World 5(3):81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, John F., Samuel L. Gaertner, and Kerry Kawakami. 2003. Intergroup contact: the past, the present, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 6(1):5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, Alice.H., and Steven J. Karau. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review 109(3):573–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehre, Kerstin, and Rebecca Spiegelhalder. 2017. Same same, but different: Eine Analyse des Humankapitals weiblicher und männlicher Aufsichtsräte in Deutschland. zfbf – Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 69(3):311–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FidAr e. V.. 2017. Women on Board Index 160. https://www.fidar.de/wob-indizes-und-studien/wob-index/wob-index-archiv.html. Accessed 18 June 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, Laura C., Matthew E. Souther, and Adam S. Yore. 2017. Does diversity pay in the boardroom? https://ssrn.com/abstract=2810543. Accessed 18 June 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Colin P., and Swarnodeep Homroy. 2018. Female directors, board committees and firm performance. European Economic Review 102(C):19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, David A., Kenneth H. Price, and Myrtle P. Bell. 1998. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal 41(1):96–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, Madeline E. 1983. Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior 5:269–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, Madeline E. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues 57(4):657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, Madeline E., and Michelle C. Haynes. 2005. No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(5):905–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, Madeline E., Caryn J. Block, and Richard F. Martell. 1995. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 10(4):237–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, Amy J., Albert A. Cannella, and Ira C. Harris. 2002. Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: how do directors differ? Journal of Management 28(6):747–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinnerich, Björn T., and Joakim Jansson. 2017. Gender quotas in the board room and firm performance: evidence from a credible threat in Sweden. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2954965. Accessed 18 June 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, Crystal L., and Susan E. Murphy. 2016. Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership. Leadership Quarterly 27(3):387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, Herminia. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 37(3):422–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jago, Arthur G., and Victor H. Vroom. 1982. Sex differences in the incidence and evaluation of participative leader behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 67(6):776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesner, Idalene F. 1988. Directors’ characteristics and committee membership: an investigation of type, occupation, tenure, and gender. The Academy of Management Journal 31(1):66–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Daehyun, and Laura T. Starks. 2016. Gender diversity on corporate boards: do women contribute unique skills? American Economic Review 106(5):267–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, Anja. 2018. The gender composition of corporate boards: a review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 29(2):346–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, Anne M., Alice H. Eagly, Abigail A. Mitchell, and Tiina Ristikari. 2011. Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin 137(4):616–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Carmen A., and Bob Wearing. 2004. Between glass ceilings: female non-executive directors in UK quoted companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 1(4):355–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Craig A., and James Philpot. 2007. Women’s roles on U.S. Fortune 500 boards: director expertise and committee memberships. Journal of Business Ethics 72(2):177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • du Plessis, Jean J., B. Großfeld, I. Saenger, O. Sandrock, and Matthias Casper. 2017. German Corporate Governance in International and European Context. German corporate governance in international and European context, 3rd edn., Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reding, Viviane. 2013. Winning the board game: Europe’s economy needs more women in business. In Getting women on to corporate boards: a snowball starting in Norway, ed. Silke Machold, Morten Huse, Katrin Hansen, and Marina Brogi, 201–209. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2001. Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues 57(4):637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruigrok, Winfried, Wolfgang Amann, and Hardy Wagner. 2007. The internationalization-performance relationship at Swiss firms: a test of the S‑shape and extreme degrees of internationalization. Management International Review 47(3):349–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Strelow, Monika. 2013. Women on boards: lessons learnt from Norway. In Getting women on to corporate boards: a snowball starting in Norway, ed. Silke Machold, Morten Huse, Katrin Hansen, and Marina Brogi, 179–183. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sealy, Ruth H.V., and Val Singh. 2010. The importance of role models and demographic context for senior women’s work identity development. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(3):284–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seierstad, Cathrine, Patricia Gabaldon, and Heike Mensi-Klarbach. 2017a. Volume 1: the use of different quota regulations. Gender diversity in the boardroom. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seierstad, Cathrine, Patricia Gabaldon, and Heike Mensi-Klarbach. 2017b. Volume 2: Multiple approaches beyond quotas. Gender diversity in the boardroom. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seierstad, Cathrine, Gillian Warner-Søderholm, Mariateresa Torchia, and Morten Huse. 2017c. Increasing the number of women on boards: the role of actors and processes. Journal of Business Ethics 141(2):289–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Val, Siri Terjesen, and Susan Vinnicombe. 2008. Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: how do women and men differ? European Management Journal 26(1):48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sojo, Victor E., Robert E. Wood, Sally A. Wood, and Melissa A. Wheeler. 2016. Reporting requirements, targets, and quotas for women in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 27(3):519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Laura Bilavski, Manuel Denzer, Christoph Eschenfelder, Christina Hentrich, Vera Steitz, and Jan Welsch for collecting the data. In addition, we are thankful for the comments of two anonymous reviewers, of seminar participants at the University of Mainz and the University of Tübingen as well as the participants of the XIX. Symposium zur Ökonomischen Analyse der Unternehmung in Frankfurt.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Jakob-Welder-Weg 4/9, 55128, Mainz, Germany

    Viktor Bozhinov, Christopher Koch & Thorsten Schank

Authors
  1. Viktor Bozhinov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thorsten Schank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Koch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

V. Bozhinov, C. Koch and T. Schank declare that they have no competing interests.

Appendix

Appendix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bozhinov, V., Koch, C. & Schank, T. The Second Glass Ceiling: Women’s Role in Supervisory Boards of German Firms. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 71, 385–411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41464-018-0063-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41464-018-0063-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation