M PRA

Munich Personal RePEc Archive

Beyond the Glass Ceiling: How Women

Leaders Drive Innovation and
Performance in Top Management

Silva, Buddhika and Hasan, Amena

University of Moratuwa, Atish Dipankar University of Science

Technology

6 March 2023

Online at [Link]
MPRA Paper No. 120388, posted 20 Mar 2024 07:48 UTC
Beyond the Glass Ceiling: How Women Leaders Drive Innovation and
Performance in Top Management

Buddhika Silva
Faculty of Humanities
University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka

Amena Hasan
Department of Business Administration
Atish Dipankar University of Science & Technology, Bangladesh

Abstract

Driven by societal pressures and a growing focus on diversity, corporations are increasingly
seeking to diversify their leadership teams. Female representation on corporate boards is a topic
of growing interest, with many European countries recently implementing formal gender diversity
requirements. This study analyzes existing research on gender diversity in boardrooms, examining
the characteristics of women directors, the challenges they encounter, and the barriers hindering
their advancement. Despite the recognized benefits of gender diversity, male-dominated boards
and ingrained gender biases often confine women to lower-level positions. As women climb the
corporate ladder, they face the "glass ceiling" and "glass cliff" phenomena, further limiting their
progress. However, research reveals no significant difference in long-term financial performance
between companies led by men and women. In fact, increased female representation can positively
impact innovation. This suggests that the glass ceiling and other barriers are not based on a lack of
talent among women but rather on unconscious biases and discriminatory practices. This article
advocates for balanced board representation based on qualifications, fostering true gender diversity
and unlocking its potential benefits for organizations.

Keywords: Empowerment, innovation, leadership, biases, gender roles, discrepancies, financial

performance

Introduction
Despite increasing efforts towards gender equality, stereotypes, biases, and negative perceptions
towards women directors still persist. Joecks et al. (2019) provide valuable insights into the
perceived roles of female directors on supervisory boards and the persisting gender stereotypes
and biases in corporate leadership, particularly in male-dominated industries. According to Joecks
et al. (2019), female directors are often perceived as being more focused on social issues and risk
management, rather than financial performance and strategic decision-making. This perception is
influenced by various factors, including the gender composition of the board, industry,
respondent's gender, and company size. These findings highlight the urgent need to address gender
biases in corporate leadership through increased diversity and inclusion efforts.
Nielsen & Huse (2010) also explored the contribution of women directors to board decision-
making and strategic involvement, as well as the role of equality perceptions in shaping their
participation on corporate boards. In their survey of Norwegian companies, they found that women
directors significantly contribute to board decision-making and strategic involvement, particularly
in areas related to social and environmental responsibility, risk management, and employee
relations. These findings align with Joecks et al. (2019). However, Nielsen & Huse (2010) also
discovered that the extent of women directors' involvement in decision-making and strategic
involvement was influenced by their perception of gender equality within the company. Women
directors who perceived high gender equality were more likely to participate, while those who
perceived low gender equality were less likely to participate. This suggests that the perception of
gender equality significantly impacts women directors' willingness to contribute to board decision-
making and strategic involvement.

Torchia et al. (2011) examined the progress made by women in achieving critical mass on corporate
boards. They define critical mass as a level of representation on boards that is significant enough
to influence decision-making processes. Torchia et al. (2011) argue that simply adding more
women to boards is not enough to achieve critical mass. Women need to be appointed to influential
positions and have the opportunity to shape the culture and decision-making processes of the
board. They also identify several opportunities for women in achieving critical mass, including the
growing recognition of the business case for gender diversity, increased pressure from stakeholders
for diversity, and the emergence of networks and initiatives to support women's advancement.

Celia de Anca et al. (2014) conducted a study in Spain and found that media coverage tends to
focus more on personal characteristics of female board members, such as physical appearance and
family background, rather than their professional qualifications and experience. This focus on
personal characteristics reinforces gender stereotypes and marginalizes women directors. Negative
media coverage also contributes to a negative perception of women directors among the public,
investors, and other stakeholders. This damaging media exposure combined with existing notions
of inferiority significantly impacts the career progression of female executives.

Peggy et al. (2007) investigated the gender effects on investor reactions to top executive
appointments. They found that female CEOs are associated with significantly negative abnormal
returns compared to male CEOs, particularly in firms with weak corporate governance structures.
Female CEOs also face more negative media coverage and shareholder activism compared to their
male counterparts. Gender stereotypes and biases may play a role in shaping these negative
reactions to female executives. These challenges suggest that gender diversity in leadership
requires systemic changes in corporate governance and culture.

Heather et al. (2013) explored the impact of a female CEO announcement on other female
executives within the organization. They found that the announcement can have both positive and
negative effects. Female executives may feel a sense of pride and solidarity, leading to increased
motivation and confidence. However, they may also feel a sense of competition and increased
scrutiny, leading to decreased job satisfaction and confidence. These intragroup effects are
dependent on the organizational context. Organizations with few female executives see a stronger
positive impact, while organizations with many female executives may experience a weaker
positive impact or even a negative impact. This highlights the importance of creating supportive
and inclusive environments to address gender inequality.

Literature Review
Although there has been an increase in efforts to promote gender diversity in the boardroom,
resistance and bias to change among the corporate elite persist. These barriers are often reinforced
by social norms and organizational practices. A study by Aleksandra et al. (2017) examines the
resistance to change in the corporate elite in the Nordic region, specifically regarding the
appointment of female directors onto corporate boards. The authors identify several factors that
influence the appointment of female directors on Nordic boards, including the size and
composition of the board, the CEO's attitude toward gender diversity, the level of shareholder
activism, and the institutional environment. By leveraging these factors, the representation of
women on corporate boards can be increased, as suggested by both Aleksandra et al. (2017) and
Joecks et al. (2019).

In another study by Ryan & Haslam (2005), the phenomenon of the "glass cliff" in leadership
positions is examined. The glass cliff refers to the situation where women are more likely to be
appointed to risky and precarious leadership positions that are likely to result in failure. Through
experiments and analysis of current leadership appointments, the authors demonstrate the
existence of the glass cliff. Participants were presented with a scenario in which a fictional
company was facing financial difficulties and asked to choose between a male or female candidate
for the CEO position. Interestingly, the female candidate, perceived as more skilled in crisis
management, was overwhelmingly chosen. However, the authors attribute this perception to the
stereotype that women are more nurturing and compassionate, and therefore better suited for
dealing with difficult situations. Thus, the root discrimination towards female executives may not
solely lie within the firms themselves, but rather in common perceptions that are difficult to alter.
Ryan & Haslam (2005) also analyzed data from FTSE 100 companies in the UK and found that
women were more likely to be appointed to leadership positions when companies were performing
poorly. This suggests that women are being brought in to turn around failing companies, placing
them in a vulnerable position where failure is more likely. This finding aligns with the results of
their previous study and implies that the glass cliff is a result of gender bias and stereotypes that
lead people to believe women are better suited for leadership positions during times of crisis
(Chowdhury, 2018). Moreover, it intentionally leads to their appointment in positions more likely
to result in failure. The authors argue that addressing the glass cliff necessitates a shift in attitudes
and perceptions about gender and leadership, as well as more equitable recruitment and selection
processes. Cultural preferences and the generation gap play a role in the perception of female
directors. Lori et al. (2009) examines the cultural preferences for leadership traits in male and
female leaders. The authors found that while there are some similarities in the preferred leadership
traits for male and female leaders across cultures, there are also significant differences. The study
revealed that in general, both male and female leaders are preferred to have traits such as
intelligence, decisiveness, and integrity. However, there are differences in the relative importance
of these traits between male and female leaders. For example, while assertiveness is highly valued
in male leaders in many cultures, it is less valued in female leaders. On the other hand, empathy is
highly valued in female leaders across many cultures but is less valued in male leaders. Cultures
that place a high value on individualism tend to value traits such as assertiveness and
independence, which are more commonly associated with male leaders.

In contrast, cultures that prioritize collectivism tend to value traits such as empathy and
cooperation, which are more commonly associated with female leaders. Therefore, Lori et al.
(2009) suggest that leadership development programs should take into account cultural differences
in preferences for leadership traits, and should strive to develop a more diverse range of leadership
styles to meet the needs of different cultural contexts. Holden & Raffo (2014) explore the potential
generation gap in perspectives on female leadership and its implications for women's career
advancement. The authors surveyed 414 employees across three generations (Baby Boomers,
Generation X, and Millennials) in various industries and job levels in the United States, finding
that there are significant differences in perspectives on female leadership across generations.
Specifically, the study found that Baby Boomers were more likely to believe that gender
discrimination is no longer a significant issue in the workplace, while Generation X and
Millennials were more likely to recognize the persistence of gender bias. Moreover, Holden and
Raffo found that Baby Boomers were more likely to believe that women should conform to
traditional gender roles, such as being nurturing and supportive, whereas younger generations saw
these gender roles as outdated and limiting. The implications for women's career advancement are
significant. They argue that the persistence of gender bias and outdated gender roles may limit
women's access to leadership positions and hinder their career advancement. There are other
factors contributing to the lack of female representation. Nekhili (2013) examines the factors that
contribute to gender diversity on boards of directors in France. The study analyzes the
demographic attributes and firm characteristics that influence the representation of women on
corporate boards. Nekhili found that several demographic factors, such as age, education, and
nationality, play a significant role in the gender diversity of corporate boards. Specifically, younger
directors and directors with higher education levels were more likely to be female. Furthermore,
directors who were born in France or other European countries were more likely to be female than
directors born outside of Europe (Chowdhury, 2012). The study also found that firm
characteristics, such as size, industry, and ownership structure, were important determinants of
gender diversity on corporate boards, which has been stated above.

Larger firms were more likely to have female directors, as were firms in industries that were
traditionally dominated by women, such as healthcare and education. Firms with a higher
percentage of institutional ownership also had a higher representation of women on their boards.
The findings of this study have important implications for policymakers and companies seeking to
increase gender diversity on corporate boards. Efforts to increase the representation of women on
boards should focus on increasing the number of younger, more highly educated directors, and on
firms in industries that are traditionally dominated by women. Current trends in all industries tend
to make it difficult for employers to find women that fit all the qualifications in the first place.
Doering & Thébaud (2017) examine the effects of gendered occupational roles on the authority of
men and women in the workplace, using microfinance as a case study. The authors found that
gendered occupational roles shape the distribution of authority in microfinance institutions, with
women being more likely to hold lower-level positions, while men hold higher-level positions
(Chowdhury and Chowdhury, 2022). This disparity in authority is further influenced by cultural
and organizational factors that perpetuate gendered norms and practices. Women directors are
more likely to face challenges in exercising their authority, as they are often seen as violating
gendered expectations of their role in the organization. These challenges are compounded by
gendered norms and practices that restrict women's access to social networks and resources that
are crucial for advancing in leadership positions. Similarly, Jacobs (1992) reports on the trends in
earnings, authority, and

Findings
Values among salaried managers in the United States. He found that women managers earn less
than male managers, have less authority, and are less likely to be perceived as effective leaders.
Both studies provide evidence that gendered occupational roles affect women's authority and
career progression, which ultimately limits their representation on boards of directors. Women are
often concentrated in lower level positions or in fields that are traditionally female-dominated,
which limits their opportunities for advancement and leadership roles.

Additionally, both studies highlight the importance of addressing structural barriers to women's
career advancement, such as gender bias in hiring and promotion practices, unequal pay, and lack
of access to leadership development opportunities. Nye & Forsyth (1992) also suggest that
assumptions about appointed leaders are impossible to prevent and ultimate play a part in the
judgement of a director. A study of 92 male managers and 84 female managers concluded that
while there are some attributes, like friendliness, that were evenly associated with both male and
female directors, male prototypes of dominance were shown in more “task-oriented” leaders.
Females, on the other hand, tended to favor prototypes of socioemotional-oriented leadership,
demonstrating that men and women tend to view different criteria when viewing and acting in
managerial roles. This contrast emphasize the importance of understanding the fundamental issue
of comparing gender differences and how perception and inclusion of executive positions is not an
issue with a direct solution, such as simply hiring more females for executive roles.

Addressing these barriers can help to increase the representation of women in leadership roles and
on corporate boards.

Impact of female board representation

Despite the challenges that women face when rising to top corporate positions, RJ Williams (2003)
explores how women on boards of directors can positively impact corporate philanthropy and
social responsibility. The study analyzes data from a sample of Fortune 500 companies over a 10-
year period and finds that having more women on boards is associated with higher levels of
corporate philanthropy. Williams (2003) suggests that women directors may bring different
perspectives and values to board decision-making, including a greater emphasis on social
responsibility and community engagement. Women may also be more likely to prioritize issues
related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in corporate decision-making. His findings generate
implications for efforts to promote gender diversity and equity in corporate leadership. Many of
the benefits that women create for firms come in intangible forms, making it difficult for corporate
leaders and managers to justify bringing on new female directors. By increasing the representation
of women on boards of directors, companies may also be able to improve their corporate social
responsibility practices and positively impact their communities in intangible processes, starting
the gradual process of recognizing the benefits brought on by women (Chowdhury et a;., 2023).
However, the study also notes that the relationship between women on boards and corporate
philanthropy is complex and may be influenced by a variety of factors, including company size,
industry, and overall corporate culture. Further research is needed to fully understand the
mechanisms behind this relationship and to identify effective strategies for promoting gender
diversity and social responsibility in corporate leadership. In order to realistically integrate women
into corporate boards, Eagly & Johnson (1990) and Eagly et al. (2003) both provide evidence of
gender differences in leadership styles that firms need to be aware of when future diversity
permeates industries. Eagly & Johnson (1990) found that women leaders tended to exhibit a more
democratic or participative style of leadership, while men leaders were more likely to use an
autocratic or directive style. These gender differences in leadership style were relatively consistent
across a range of organizational settings and contexts, showing the changes that females would
bring to any larger scale of gender inclusivity in top management. In essence, Eagly & Johnson
(1990) imply the changes in corporate structure that is to come as modern society pushes for
increasing the amount of women in positions of control. Similarly, Eagly et al. (2003) conducted
a meta-analysis of 45 studies to examine gender differences in leadership styles. They found that
women leaders tended to exhibit more transformational leadership, which involves inspiring and
motivating followers to achieve a shared vision, while men leaders were more likely to use
transactional or laissez-faire leadership styles. Importantly, Eagly et al. (2003) and Chowdhury et
al., (2022) continues that transformational leadership was positively associated with organizational
performance and employee satisfaction, suggesting that women leaders may have an advantage in
these areas due to their tendency to exhibit this leadership style. The authors suggest that this may
be due to societal expectations and stereotypes that promote communal and nurturing behaviors in
women, which are consistent with transformational leadership. Stainback (2012) finds that having
a higher percentage of female leaders in an organization is associated with a reduction in sex
segregation in job assignments. Historically, as aligned with more traditional gender roles, certain
jobs and tasks typically were dominated by either male or female employees. Contrarily as women
advance further into the top tiers of the corporate structure, concurrent changes have come as well.
This is because female leaders are more likely to actively seek out and promote women for
leadership positions and break down gender stereotypes in hiring and promotion decisions.
Additionally, the study finds that female leaders also have a positive impact on the distribution of
organizational power, as they are more likely to promote a more participatory and egalitarian
organizational culture. At the same time, Cohen et al. (2007) examine the relationship between
female representation in management and the gender wage gap. The study finds that having a
higher percentage of female managers is associated with a reduction in the gender wage gap,
especially in industries with a high concentration of female workers.
Female managers are more likely to be sensitive to gender bias in wage setting and advocate for
equal pay for female workers. However, Cohen et al. (2007) also finds that the effect of female
managers on the gender wage gap diminishes as the percentage of female managers increases,
suggesting that having a critical mass of female managers is necessary to achieve meaningful
change. Rink et al. (2019) furthers these ideas by reporting the long-term implications of female
leaders on future generations of top women. Their study investigates how leaders determine the
succession potential of their followers, and whether gender plays a role in this process. When
considering a potential successor, Rink et al. (2019) concludes that leaders tend to focus more on
interpersonal fit with followers than on their performance. Furthermore, female leaders were found
to be more sensitive to interpersonal fit than male leaders. This means that when considering
potential successors, female leaders may be more likely to select followers who they perceive to
have a good interpersonal fit, which could ultimately lead to more diversity in leadership positions.
Nonetheless, it is still important to recognize the findings of Lori et al. (2009) which highlight the
increased focus on personal traits within women. The findings of Rink et al. (2019) may be affected
through the unconscious qualities that individuals look at within females when compared to male.
In addition, Bilimoria (2006) explores the relationship between the presence of women on
corporate boards of directors along with the number of women in corporate officer positions and
any connection they might have. The study found, in correlation with prior studies, that companies
with more women on their boards of directors are more likely to have a higher number of women
in executive officer positions. A positive relationship between women on boards and women in
executive officer positions is stronger in companies with a more diverse board of directors,
indicating that having a diverse board can lead to more diversity in leadership positions. Together,
these studies suggest that increasing the number of women on corporate boards of directors can
positively impact succession planning and decision-making, and increase the number of women in
leadership positions.

Impact of Female Representation

Adler (1993) and Suraj-Narayan (2005) explore the challenges that women face in reaching
leadership positions in organizations and serving on boards of directors. Adler (1993) argues that
there are cultural and organizational barriers that prevent Asian women from reaching leadership
positions. These barriers include stereotypes and biases about women's leadership abilities, lack of
access to networks and mentors, and cultural expectations that prioritize family responsibilities
over career advancement. Adler (1993) suggests that organizations need to provide more support
to Asian women in terms of training and mentoring programs, as well as creating a more inclusive
workplace culture that values diversity. Suraj-Narayan (2005) examines the impact of gender-
related occupational stress on women's career advancement. Suraj-Narayan (2005) argues that
women face unique stressors in the workplace, such as discrimination, harassment, and work-life
balance challenges, that can have negative impacts on their career trajectories. She suggests that
organizations need to address these issues by providing resources such as flexible work
arrangements, training programs, and support networks to help women manage these stressors and
advance in their careers.
In extreme cases, Van Gerven et al. (2022) and Chowdhury et al., (2021) examine how gender
influences the way people perceive narcissistic leaders. The study found that participants rated
narcissistic leadership behaviors as more acceptable and less problematic when they were
exhibited by a man compared to a woman. This suggests that gender biases can influence how
people perceive and evaluate leadership behavior, particularly when it comes to traits associated
with narcissism. Bark et al. (2022) presents the question on how women can navigate gender biases
in leadership positions. Alina (2022) suggests that team prototypicality, or the extent to which a
leader fits the expectations of their team, can be a facilitator for female leaders. When female
leaders are seen as fitting the expectations of their team, they may be more likely to be perceived
as effective and successful. The article suggests that this can be accomplished through strategies
such as emphasizing commonalities with the team and building a strong team culture

Role in the Field of Finance

In recent decades, the focus towards increasing diversity within corporate structure has grown due
to its potential and percieved influence towards financial growth. Current research points towards
a general consensus that increased diversity tends to be connected with a lower level of “strategic
change”. Triana et al. (2014) express the increased difficulties associated with boards with higher
rates of diversity. While increased diversity provides for an increased body of knowledge, it also
provides a cause for increased conflict due to differing ideas often clashing during discussion.
Thus, as competition between decision making individuals heightens internally for control over
corporate actions, less strategic action is taken in the long term. Interestingly, Triana et al. (2014)
highlights the variability potential of higher diversity when provided specific circumstances;
increased levels of diversity during times when firm performance is high correspond with
increased levels of strategic change while high diveristy during times of low performance
subsequently correspond with low amounts of strategic change. The inability for gender diveristy
to function as a mediator for reversing negative performance, while at the same time emphasizing
positive performance, demonstrates how gender diversity serves as a factor for magnification of
current firm standings rather than change. Cohen & Broschak (2013) modifies this idea, recounting
that some theories suggest that women and men have historically shifted into a structure of existing
positions. Such implies that the current shift in increasing top level diversity may be in opposition
to the natural structure of firms. In an examination of the influence of female management on job
creation, Cohen & Broschak (2013) found that long term effects of female managers led to a steady
increase in female job creation alongside a parabolic decrease of male job creation, showing that
females managers tended to prefer same-sex hiring when provided a choice. These preferences
are somewhat supported by the financial results depicted by Shrader et al. (1997) that while female
management correlated positively with indicators such as ROI, ROA, and ROE, it was difficult to
find an abnormal relationship with top level female managers and firm value. Shrader et al. (1997)
point out that there was a shortage of evidence to be studied regarding female managers since there
were no female chief executives and only 4.5% of executive management teams were women. It
was concluded that another potential influence related to the tendency for women to be provided
less impactful positions and assignments, therefore making the results of A glass ceiling report by
the US Department of Labor indicated that female workers, in general, were unable to work more
demanding positions such as top management due to a higher chance of family issues and
concurrently facing difficult environments due to men being more uncomfortable with working
with women in those positions. According to Schrader et al. (1997), even though it has been shown
that firms led by women performed equally to those by men, it still requires a “critical mass”, or a
minimum amount, of female leaders in male dominated firms for them to have a voice within the
firm in terms of strategic actions. Similarly, a study by Dezso & Ross (2012) views the
representation of females in top management teams to find resulting influences from gender
diversity. They indicate that increasing the percentage of women in high level management tends
to improve the performance of management tasks. Despite this, the study by Dezso & Ross (2012)
also clarify that there was no evidence that female representation at the highest levels of
management harmed firm value, but firm performance does benefit a firm when the strategy of the
firm includes innovation.

Nature of Women Directorship

Although women provide an alternate perspective critical for increasing the success and
development of innovation tasks, a male dominated landscape of executive management inherently
discourages female participation in industries not reliant on the benefits provided through female
board members. This may be due to the way calls for increasing diversity inherently benefits
women; Ahern & Dittmar (2012) find significantly different statistical characteristics between
male and female director hirings. New female managers were, on average, eight years younger
than their male counterparts and only had previous executive experience 31.2% of the time while
69.4% for men. Horváth & Spirollari (2012) claim that such is a benefit for some firms considering
that younger managers, regardless of gender, are more likely to undertake in organizational
changes and activities with higher risk. However, they do not indicate whether or not these
differences are present solely within each gender’s older and younger member comparison or
applicable in cross-sex analysis. Horváth & Spirollari (2012) also conclude that elevated levels of
insider ownership benefits firm performance and since males hold a majority of shares of firms
throughout the economy, male appointments are inherently preferred over female leadership in this
case. Dezso & Ross (2012) reason that in firms with higher levels of female managers, women in
middle management may see this as a signal of legitimization of female participation in more
important firm tasks. While they demonstrate that females and males have been shown to act
masculine or feminine based on the task at hand rather than in line with historical gender norms,
Ahern & Dittmar (2012) argue that the level of experience and potential work quality may be
significantly different. On a grander scale, Dezso & Ross (2012) find in over 2500 firms that firm
performance positively correlates with increasing gender diversity, implying that there must also
be other factors in contribution. A particular study from by Campbell & Minguez-Vera (2008)
gathers interviews from female Fortune 500 secretaries and managers that express how female
impact on boards begins to possess influence on decision making once there are three or more
women holding positions of management. Statistics show a rise in females in higher learning
education, potentially supporting the reason behind the rise in female directors in the United States.
Campbell & Minguez-Vera (2008) addresses the ethical arguements that female exclusion from
corporate boards is immoral, stating the higher chance of financial failure when firms choose
important board positions using a focus of diversity rather than qualification. Inci et al. (2017)
highlight the relative disadvantages that female executives face compared to males considering the
wider network of other managers and directors that appointed male executives tend to have. This
is not to say that diversity has no benefit; Campbell & Minguez-Vera (2008) reference an article
by Robinson and Dechant (1997) which reasons that diversity within firm managers allows for
better understanding of the market place by matching the diversity of the consumer base with that
of the firm. Such theory also implies that industry diversity will vary dramatically. Brammer et al.
(2007) find that indeed, sectors such as retail, media, and banks, which require high interaction
with the consumer have higher numbers of women managers while sectors such as engineering
and resource-related services that tend to have less interaction with the consumer base have less
female managers.

Females workers, indiscriminant of role, may hold a better role with interactions between
consumers while male workers are more suited to roles dealing with resources and products.
Campbell & Minguez-Vera (2008) argue that homogenous leading groups tend to have fewer
differences thus resulting in a higher likelihood of shared opinions and fewer conflicts.
Consequently, these same characteristics also mean that increasing diversity alters the level of
agreement between opinions in a group of managers. While such is beneficial for furthering
innovation-type tasks, creating conflicts within the highest positions of management serve to delay
the ability for firms to make strategic decisions. An exception to this rule is made by Inci et al.
(2017) who demonstrate in a study of the 2008 financial crisis that women were conducting a
significantly larger amount of trades, contrasting one aspect of the prior claims that female
directors are less risk averse. Post & Byron (2015) explain that female integration into board tasks
may lead to monitoring firm activities through stricter ethical bounds, expressed by Pan & Sparks
(2012) and Isidro & Sobral (2015), and provide a alternate cognitive frame to strategic actions for
shareholder interests. Issues previously absent in male dominated environments arise within
diversified executive management due to these circumstances such as debates over the morality of
certain firm practices or the cost-benefit of a corporate move.

Impact of Gender Variance

Despite the fact that many claims are potentially valid, firm financial performance is sacrificed at
the expense of non-financial gains therefore categorizing diversity as a function of tokenism rather
than utility for corporations. One explanation of these occurences stems from the opposing
altruistic tendencies between men and women. Andreoni & Vesterlund (2001) find that women are
more likely to be altruistic when the cost of altruism is higher and men are more altruistic when
costs are lower. As noted previously, simply calling for diversity as an ethical issue fails to provide
for firm performance in this case. On the contrary, Isidro & Sobral (2015) detail that female board
influence on increasing ethical compliance can increase other factors important to increasing firm
value, although not directly firm value itself, through methods not represented on accounting
measures. The study takes data from firms that are part of the European Commission which in
2012 announced a requirement for a 40% quota of women directors in roles outside of executive
management. The European Commision claims that gender diversity enhances financial
performance and creates value for firms, hence the mandate. However, Post & Byron (2015)
conclude that there is no significant direct relationship between females on boards and the financial
performance in a study of companies in 36 countries around the world. Evidence regarding board
activities suggests that female participation increases monitoring of firms when stricter shareholder
protections are present. Consequently, countries such as China and Spain, where regulations are
the lowest, see no relationship with women and monitoring. Isidro & Sobral (2015) add on, stating
that increasing female non-executive managers do not show any form of increase in firm value,
but instead have a positive effect on financial performance indicators such as ROA before tax
(since taxation differences in countries may alter ROA). This insight can explain the results found
by Campbell & Minguez-Vera (2008) considering that their study’s conclusions of a positive
relationship between female board membership and overall firm value in corporations in Spain is
supported by the reasoning of Andreoni & Vesterlund (2001) and Isidro & Sobral (2015).
Additionally, a study by Ahern & Dittmar (2012) in Norway of 248 public corporations regarding
the same 40% quota found that the announcement of the requirement led to a drop in stock price
in the immediate days following; despite this, the changes in stock value was not equal for all
firms. Companies with at least 1 female director saw no significant change in stock price, only -
.02%, while companies with no female directors saw a -3.54% change. and a diminishing of
Tobin’s Q value in the years afterwards.

A study by Marisetty & Prasad (2022) on mandated corporate diversity in India argues that in
developing nations, the gender gap in other foundational institutions, like education, also play a
factor in board inequality. Despite Heath & Jayachandran (2016) demonstrating a reduction in the
gender gap of education in developing nations, there is no subsequent reduction in top management
representation. Rather, a study by Lageröf (2003) state that the presence of a gender inequality in
education stimulates economic growth. Knowles et al. (2002) clarifies such, proclaiming the
presence of an entire gender gap in educational tools do in fact reduce economic growth but does
not acknowledge the notion of the influence of gender inequality. On a grander scale, Ahern &
Dittmar (2012) show that the lack of available, qualified female directors, similar to that study of
Shrader et al. (1997), forced other aspects of firms to change as a result of the appointment of a
female director. The study resulted in worse measures of financial performance, saw a higher rate
of acquisitions, and increased the average size of corporations; these findings are characteristics
of boards that are less effective. In a similar study by Yu & Madison (2021), researchers analyze
the differences in profitability of firms before and after governmental legislation that forced a
certain level of diversity. They find, through a view 9 other studies, conclude the slight
deterioration of corporate performance after quotas of gender diversity are implemented. Tobin’s
Q values changed on average between negative 1.0 percent to positive 0.3 percent and ROA
changed on average about negative 0.5 percent. Martin et al. (2009) considers the general
stereotypes that females have less financial ability than that of males causes females to be less
confident in their abilities. Although they focus solely on investment funds which are different
from corporations in whole, funds can act as a representation of the “financial performance” aspect
of corporations. The study argues that this stereotype is further boosted through discrepancies in
net cash flows of male vs female managed bond funds, with male-operated fund’s net cash flows
being higher than that of females despite having no performance differences. Bosworth & Lee
(2017) addresses the contrasting conclusions of Post & Byron (2015) and Adams & Ferreira (2009)
regarding the effects of increased female board presence and corporate performance. Post & Byron
suggests that the advantages of board diversity is displaced by poor governance that comes along
with doing so while Adams & Ferreira (2009) suggest that women on boards may lead to over
monitoring that harms otherwise good governance. Ultimately, Bosworth & Lee (2017) find no
indication that firm governance has any effect on the influence of female board members on
performance, serving to add to the ambiguity of the literature.

Despite the stereotypes, the financial market some argue that the market does not have a
significantly different response for female executive appointments, showing that female directors
are not viewed as less competent. Martin et al. (2009) provides an alternate perspective with female
directors, stating that the appointment of female executive managers significantly lowers firm risk.
The changes in risk are lower after the appointment of a female director than a male director.
Evidence reveals that firms with higher amounts of risk are much more likely to inadvertently hire
a female manager in order to reduce the total risk, demonstrating underlying knowledge of these
female characteristics.

The Social Barrier

Regardless of the steady growth of industry and government action to increase gender diversity
among executive and middle management boards, female directors still face a glass ceiling barrier
that prevents a majority of women managers from advancing further than their initial
appointments. Bruckmuller & Branscombe (2010) define the glass cliff phenomenon as the trend
where women are more likely to be promoted to board leadership and management during a firm’s
period of downturn, as opposed to males who are more likely to be promoted during times of
success. They find that stereotypes regarding men and women are a key contributor to the glass
cliff; male characteristics were valued higher when a firm was looking for future leadership while
female characteristics were more important during times of crisis. Additionally, Ryan & Haslam
(2005) note corporate tendencies to appoint female leaders when Cotter et al. (2001) defines four
criterion that constitute a glass ceiling, which predates the glass cliff. Most notably is position
discrimination, especially where the inequality is not constituted by the individual’s qualifications
or experiences. Secondly is the unequal levels of discrimination in access to tangible assets
between the top and lower positions, seen in an asymmetrical access to information and tools as a
person moves up the hierarchy of roles. Next is an inequality in the chances for promotion into
higher roles. Such is similar to the second criteria where the chances for promotion are
disproportionally stacked against a certain gender or race. Lastly is the intangible discrimination
through environmental and network barriers that also grows as a person gains more influential
roles. For those who seemingly break through this barrier, a new phenomenon known as the glass
cliff follows, where females are placed in more insecure positions with a high likelihood of failure.
Quite logically, Bennett (2002) reasons that women with better educational backgrounds and better
training were more likely to advance into management positions. Despite this, Sabharwal (2015)
recognizes that despite the mounting number of women reaching top managerial positions, not
much is known about what occurs to them after gaining such role.

Other Influencing Elements

Discrimination in the economy regarding the expected roles of men and women has historically
led to a large amount of female participation in lower paying fields with fewer chances for
improvement. It is also thought that women hold a better understanding of issues such as children,
education, and caretaking as this is represented through a disproportionately higher amount of
female hirings at agencies such as the Department of Education. In a review, Sabharwal (2015)
characterizes women as more risk-averse than men and having more soft skills that translate to a
better fit in industries requiring more emotional labor than skilled labor. In effect, the decision
making ability of men and women will reflect these terms.

Female leaders have a more limited role in decision-making in hypercompetitive nature of top
boards as they are less willing to take high risk, high reward type actions necessary to elevate
firms. Even though Ryan & Haslam (2005, 2007) and Feenstra et al. (2022) show that the glass
ceiling phenomenon has seemed to been broken as time progresses, the true influence of these
female directors is still weak. A study by Ryan & Haslam (2007) of graduate, undergraduate, and
high school students concluded that women tend to fail more often when place in volatile positions,
and they receive less support compared to their male counterparts when placed in roles that are
male dominated. Women may feel that their board position are constantly under a threat since their
environments imply that they are not qualified enough and may develop cases of imposter
syndrome. Bishu & Alkadry (2017), Heilman & Caleo (2018), and Gormon (2005) find that female
directors are often underpaid, see a stricter evaluation scale, and overall less likely to be chosen to
take managerial positions than their male counter parts. According to Feenstra et al. (2022), the
feeling of power threats is also correlated to the experiences of females in their industry, and in
fields where women are the minority, a lack of fit of experiences prevents women from climbing
the corporate ladder. For the individual, power threats result in higher emotional anxiety and
exhaustion as well as increased motivations to quit the position given. On the individual scale,
Babic & Hansez (2021) state that indirect factors like mentorships, informal networks, and
intracompany relationships are critical in creating the glass ceiling-type environment. Elacqua el
al. (2009) mentions how employees with mentors feel better connected with their roles and not
excluded from opportunities. Female directors tend to lack the higher level mentorships that lead
to promotions and provide information; though the direct consequence is not substantial, the
mental gap it creates is significant enough to alienate women in positions such as a board director.

Cook & Glass (2014) examine Fortune 500 firms for instances where top CEOs and directors face
glass ceiling circumstances. They found that not just women, but also race minorities, were more
likely to be placed at a directors position of a firm performing weakly. Although the length of time
these appointed managers served remained unchanged, these directors were at a much higher risk
of being replaced by someone of the majority, typically a white man, when performance declined.
Additionally, Singh & Vinnicombe (2004) note the oddly large number of male directors appointed
without previous experience among FTSE 100 boards, demonstrating that a lack of experience
doesn’t prevent men from gaining top board positions. Such is the common mold of the glass cliff
analogy. Interestingly, Feenstra et al. (2022) notes that these negative results do not influence the
identification of females to the organizations they are a part of, potentially because the executive
nature of boards causes people to strongly associate with their firm. It may be that female directors
and managers have become accustomed to the glass ceiling environments and view a position on
a board of directors with a sense of luck. One potential reason can be explained through Smith &
Parrotta (2018) depiction of the notion of tokenism in modern economies, where female
appointments are seen with lesser importance and as a move to promote diversity rather than
enhance the firm. Tokenism severely restrict any ability for a female leader, or any leader deemed
as a token, to create significant impact due to the rarity of their circumstances. Smith & Parrotta
(2018) indicate that the only real solution to this issue would be simply increasing the number of
women reaching top executive positions in order to rid of the tokenism idea from the environment.

Doing so would also help increase the amount of female board member appointed at lower levels
of management, assisting with diminishing the glass ceiling effect. However, in a female
dominated occupation like that of nursing, Snyder & Green (2008) highlight that men are not
overrepresented in executive positions but rather a disproportionate clustering of roles. Echoing
the findings of Dezso & Ross (2012), Snyder & Green (2008) demonstrate even in a inherently
gender based occupation such as nursing, men continue to be more prevalent in masculine
positions and women in more feminine positions. In terms of top boards, Snyder and Green (2008)
further the notion that executive boards have been historically painted as a masculine position,
thus the glass ceiling effect for women as gender diversity becomes an increasing concern in the
modern economy. Furthering the findings of Dezso & Ross (2012), Torchia et al. (2011) concludes
that increasing the amount of women on boards, changing the dynamic of females on an individual
board from tokenism to a minority, not only contributes to further gender diversity but also furthers
firm innovation. Hence, female directors indirectly benefit firm performance when they break
through the glass ceiling phenomenon. Contrarily, Bennett (2002) finds in a study of 2500 female
employees that a male-dominated environment and self confidence did not have any significant
effect on women advancing into top board and firm positions. It should be noted that the women
studied already had a managerial background so it is very possible that these females were primed
to succeed versus their counterparts. In essence, women tend to face difficulties climbing the
corporate ladder not just due to tangible shortcomings in their surroundings, but they also face the
mental strain of taking on a managerial role that historically has been dominated by men.

Conclusion
This research supports the need for increased gender diversity in leadership positions and boards
of directors. The resistance to change within the corporate elite, as identified in the studies,
indicates the persistence of gender biases and stereotypes that hinder the appointment and
advancement of women in executive roles. The glass cliff phenomenon further highlights the
challenges faced by women in leadership positions, as they are often placed in precarious and high-
risk situations. These barriers not only limit the opportunities for women but also hinder overall
organizational success and innovation. Therefore, it is imperative for organizations to address these
biases and work towards creating more inclusive and equitable environments. This can be achieved
by promoting gender diversity, challenging traditional gender roles, improving recruitment and
selection processes, and fostering a culture that values and supports women in leadership positions.
By doing so, organizations can benefit from the diverse perspectives and contributions of women,
ultimately leading to better performance and overall success.
References

1. Adams, R. B. and D. Ferreira. “Women in the Boardroom and their Impact on Governance and
Performance.” Journal of Financial Economics 94 (2009): 291-309.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.10.007.
2. Adler, Nancy J. “Asian Women in Management.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 1
(1984): 17-27.
3. Ahern, Kenneth R., and Amy K. Dittmar. “The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm
Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 127,
no. 1 (2012): 137-197.
4. Andreoni, James, and Lise Vesterlund. “Which Is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in
Altruism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, no. 1 (2001): 293-312.
5. Babic, Audrey, and Isabelle Hansez. “The Glass Ceiling for Women Managers: Antecedents
and Consequences for Work-Family Interface and Well-Being at Work.” Journal of Business
Ethics 76, no. 3 (2007): 297-311.
6. Bennett, R. J. “Cracking the glass ceiling as well as the floor: Factors affecting women’s
advancement into upper management.” Research Brief in Academy of Management Executive
16, no. 1 (2002): 157-159.
7. Bilimoria, Diana. “The Relationship Between Women Corporate Directors and Women
Corporate Officers.” ProQuest, 2000.
8. Bishu, Sebawit G., and Mohamad G. Alkadry. “A Systematic Review of the Gender Pay Gap
and Factors That Predict It.” Administration & Society 49, no. 1 (2017): 40-75.
9. Bosworth, William and Sharon Lee. “Mandated or Spontaneous Board Diversity? Does It
Matter?” Journal of Business Ethics 94 (2010): 191-206.
10. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0269-8.
11. Brammer, Stephen, Andrew Millington, and Stephen Pavelin. “Gender and Ethnic Diversity
Among UK Corporate Boards.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 18, no. 2
(2010): 125-138.
12. Bruckmuller, Susanne and Nyla R. Branscombe. “The Glass Cliff: When and Why Women
Are Selected as Leaders in Crisis Contexts.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40 (2010):
2569-2591. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00673.x.
13. Campbell, Kevin, and Antonio Mínguez-Vera. “Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and Firm
Financial Performance.” Journal of Business Ethics 83, no. 3 (2008): 435-451.
14. Cohen, Lisa E., and Joseph P. Broschak. “Whose Jobs Are These? The Impact of the Proportion
of Female Managers on the Number of New Management Jobs Filled by Women versus Men.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 58, no. 3 (2013): 361-396.
15. Cohen, Philip N. “Working for the Woman? Female Managers and the Gender Wage Gap.”
16. American Sociological Review 82 (2017): 759-787.
17. Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic
minorities promoted to CEO? Sociological Perspectives, 57(4), 399-422.
18. Cotter, D.A., Hermsen, J.M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect.
Social Forces, 80(2), 655-682.
19. De Anca, Celia, and Patricia Gabaldon. “The Media Impact of Board Member Appointments
in Spanish-Listed Companies: A Gender Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 111, no. 4
(2012): 461-476.
20. De la Rey, Cheryl. “Gender, Women and Leadership.” Agenda, vol. 19, no. 65, 2005, pp. 4-
10. Dezső, Cristian L., and David Gaddis Ross. “Does Female Representation in Top
Management
21. Improve Firm Performance? A Panel Data Investigation.” Strategic Management Journal 33,
no. 9 (2012): 1072-1089.
22. Chowdhury, E. K. (2024). Examining the benefits and drawbacks of social media usage on
academic performance: a study among university students in Bangladesh. Journal of
Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 1-17, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.
[Link]
23. Chowdhury, E. K. (2023). Is the Application of Blockchain Technology in Accounting
Feasible? A Developing Nation Perspective. In Abedin, M.K., Hajek, P. (eds.) Cyber
Security and Business Intelligence Innovations and Machine Learning for Cyber Risk
Management (pp. 46-64). Routledge. [Link]
24. Chowdhury, E. K., & Humaira, U. (2023). The Russia–Ukraine conflict and investor
psychology in financial markets. Economic Affairs, 43(3), 388-405.
[Link]
25. Chowdhury E.K, & Khan I.I. (2023). Reactions of Global Stock Markets to the Russia–
Ukraine War: An Empirical Evidence, Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Vol. ahead-of-print
No. ahead-of-print. [Link]
26. Chowdhury, E. K. (2023). Do weather patterns effect investment decisions in the stock
market? A South Asian perspective, Journal of Asset Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No.
ahead-of-print. [Link]
27. Chowdhury, E. K. (2021). Financial accounting in the era of blockchain-a paradigm shift
from double entry to triple entry system. Available at SSRN 3827591.
[Link]
28. Chowdhury, E. K., Stasi. A. & Pellegrino. A. (2023). Blockchain Technology in Financial
Accounting: Emerging Regulatory Issues. Review of Economics and Finance. 21 (1), 862-
868. [Link]
29. Chowdhury, E. K., & Abdullah, M. N. (2023). Gauging Demand for Cryptocurrency over the
Economic Policy Uncertainty and Stock Market Volatility. Computational Economics, 1-19.
[Link]
30. Abdullah, M.N., Chowdhury, E.K. & Tooheen, R.B. (2022). Determinants of capital
structure in banking sector: a Bangladesh perspective. SN Bus Econ. 2, (190).
[Link]

31. Chowdhury E.K, Khan I.I, Dhar B.K. (2021). Catastrophic impact of Covid-19 on the global
stock markets and economic activities. Business & Society Review, 127 (2), 437-460.
[Link]
32. Chowdhury E.K, Khan I.I, Dhar B.K. (2023). Strategy for implementing blockchain
technology in accounting: Perspectives of stakeholders in a developing nation. Business
Strategy & Development, 6 (3), 477-490. [Link]
33. Chowdhury, E, K., & Islam, A. (2017). Role of Foreign Direct Investment in the Stock
Market Development of Bangladesh- A Cointegration and VAR Approach. The Bangladesh
Accountant, April-June, 2017, 63-74. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Bangladesh.
[Link]
34. Chowdhury, E. K (2021). Does Internal Control Influence Financial Performance of
Commercial Banks? Evidence from Bangladesh. South Asian Journal of Management, 28(1),
59-77. [Link]
35. Chowdhury, E. K. (2012). Impact of inflation on bank lending rates in Bangladesh. Journal
of Politics and Governance, 1(1), 5-14. [Link]
36. Chowdhury, E. K. (2012). The Impact of Merger on Shareholders' Wealth. International
Journal of Applied Research in Business Administration and Economics, 1(2), 27-32.
[Link]
37. Chowdhury, E. K. (2016). Investment Behavior: A Study on Working Women in Chittagong.
Premier Critical Perspective, 2 (1). 95-109.
[Link]
38. Chowdhury, E. K. (2017). Functioning of Fama-French Three- Factor Model in Emerging
Stock Markets: An Empirical Study on Chittagong Stock Exchange, Bangladesh. Journal of
Financial Risk Management, 6(4), 352-363. [Link]
39. Chowdhury, E. K. (2017). Measuring the Effect of Macroeconomic Variables on the Stock
Market Return: Evidence from Chittagong Stock Exchange. AU-International e-Journal of
Interdisciplinary Research, 2(2), 1-10.
[Link]
40. Chowdhury, E. K. (2021). Prospects and challenges of using artificial intelligence in the
audit process. In Abedin, M.Z., Hassan, M.K., Hajek, P. (eds.) The Essentials of Machine
Learning in Finance and Accounting (pp. 139-155). Routledge. [Link]
41. Chowdhury, E. K. (2022). Disastrous consequence of coronavirus pandemic on the earning
capacity of individuals: an emerging economy perspective. SN Bus Econ. 2(153).
[Link] 022-00333-z
42. Chowdhury, E. K., & Abedin, M. Z. (2020). COVID-19 effects on the US stock index
returns: an event study approach. Available at SSRN 3611683.
[Link]
43. Chowdhury, E. K., & Begum. R. (2012). Reward Management as Motivational Tool in
Various Industries in Bangladesh: An empirical study. International Journal of
Contemporary Business Studies, 3(11), 22-34. [Link]
44. Chowdhury, E. K., & Chowdhury, G. M. (2014). Applicability of Prediction Techniques in
the Stock Market-A Chittagong Stock Exchange Perspective. International Journal of
Advanced Information Science and Technology, 32(32), 126-136,
DOI:10.15693/ijaist/2014.v3i12.124-134
45. Chowdhury, E. K., & Chowdhury, R. (2017). Online Shopping in Bangladesh: A Study on
the Motivational Factors for Ecommerce that Influence Shopper’s Affirmative Tendency
towards Online Shopping. South Asian Journal of Marketing & Management Research, 7(4).
20-35. DOI:10.5958/2249-877X.2017.00019.4
46. Chowdhury, E. K., & Chowdhury, R. (2022). Empirical research on the relationship between
renewable energy consumption, foreign direct investment and economic growth in South
Asia. Journal of Energy Markets, 15(2). 1-21, [Link]
47. Chowdhury, E. K., & Chowdhury, R. (2023). Role of financial inclusion in human
development: Evidence from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Journal of the Knowledge
Economy, 1-26. [Link]
48. Chowdhury, E. K., & Nahar, S. (2017). Perceptions of Accountants toward Sustainability
Development Practices in Bangladesh. Journal of Management and Sustainability,7(3), 112-
119. doi:10.5539/jms.v7n3p112
49. Chowdhury, E. K., & Reza, T. (2013). Diagnostic Study on Interactive Ads and Its Response
towards the FM Radio. International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT & Management,
3(2), 36-41. [Link]
50. Chowdhury, E. K., Abdullah, M. N., & Tooheen, R. B. (2021). Role of information and
communication technology in economic progress and increasing demand for renewable
energy: evidence from China and India. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 30(3), 651-
671. [Link]
51. Chowdhury, E. K., Dhar, B. K., & Stasi, A. (2022). Volatility of the US stock market and
business strategy during COVID-19. Business Strategy & Development, 1–11.
[Link]
52. Chowdhury, E. K., Dhar, B. K., Gazi, M., & Issa, A. (2022). Impact of Remittance on
Economic Progress: Evidence from Low-Income Asian Frontier Countries. Journal of the
Knowledge Economy, 1-26. [Link]
53. Chowdhury, E. K., Dhar, B. K., Thanakijsombat, T., & Stasi, A. (2022). Strategies to
determine the determinants of financial performance of conventional and Islamic commercial
banks: Evidence from Bangladesh. Business Strategy & Development, 1–19.
[Link]
54. Chowdhury, E.K. (2018). An Assessment of Return Spillover Among Selected Stock
Markets in SAARC Countries. South Asian Journal of Management, 25 (1), 51-63.
Association of Management Development Institutions in South Asia.
[Link]
55. Chowdhury, E.K. (2018). Does Foreign Direct Investment Stimulate Economic Progress of a
Developing Country? Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh. CIU Journal, 1 (1), 71-86.
Chittagong Independent University. [Link]
56. Chowdhury, E.K. (2019). An Empirical Study of Volatility in Chittagong Stock Exchange.
CIU Journal, 2 (1), 19-38. Chittagong Independent University. [Link]
57. Chowdhury, E.K. (2019). Transformation of Business Model through Blockchain
Technology. The Cost and Management, 47(5), 4-9. The Institute of Cost and Management
Accountants of Bangladesh. [Link]
58. Chowdhury, E.K. (2020). Catastrophic Impact of Covid-19 on Tourism Sector in
Bangladesh: An Event Study Approach. The Cost and Management, 48(4), 43-52. The
Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of Bangladesh. [Link]
59. Chowdhury, E.K. (2020). Is Capital Market Integration among the SAARC Countries
Feasible? An Empirical Study. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 13(25), 21-36.
[Link]
60. Chowdhury, E.K. (2020). Non-Performing Loans in Bangladesh: Bank Specific and
Macroeconomic Effects. Journal of Business Administration, 41(2), 108-125. University of
Dhaka. [Link]
61. Chowdhury, E.K. (2020). Volatility in Cryptocurrency Market–Before and During Covid-19
Pandemic. CIU Journal, 3(1), 69-86. Chittagong Independent University.
[Link]
62. Chowdhury, E.K. (2022). Strategic approach to analyze the effect of Covid-19 on the stock
market volatility and uncertainty: a first and second wave perspective, Journal of Capital
Markets Studies, 6(3), 225-241. [Link]
63. Chowdhury, E.K. (2023). Integration of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Management
Accounting Information System: An Empirical Study. In: Abedin, M.Z., Hajek, P. (eds)
Novel Financial Applications of Machine Learning and Deep Learning. International Series
in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 336. Springer, Cham.
[Link]
64. Chowdhury, E.K., & Rozario, S. O. (2018). Impact of Attitude and Awareness of Investors
on their Investment Behavior- A Study on Bangladesh Stock Market. The Bangladesh
Accountant, July- September, 81-89. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Bangladesh.
[Link]
65. Chowdhury, EK (2020). India’s NRC, CAA may take Bangladesh closer to China. Asian
Regional Review, Diverse Asia, Seoul National University Asia Center, 3(2).
[Link]
66. Chowdhury, M.R.A., & Chowdhury, E. K. (2010). Estimation of Stock Market Risk-A Value
at Risk Approach. The Cost & Management, 38(4), 22-27. [Link]
67. Chowdhury, M.R.A., Chowdhury, E. K., & Chowdhury, T. U. (2015). Application of Capital
Asset Pricing Model: Empirical Evidences from Chittagong Stock Exchange. The Cost &
Management, 43(03), 38-44. [Link]
68. Stainback, Kevin et al. “Female Leaders, Organizational Power, and Sex Segregation.” Gender
& Society 10 (1996): 408-428.
69. Suraj-Narayan, Gourie. “Women in Management and Occupational Stress.” JSTOR, 2005.
Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women Directors on Corporate Boards: From
70. Tokenism to Critical Mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 299-317.
71. Triana, María del Carmen, Toyah L. Miller and Tiffany M. Trzebiatowski. “The Double-Edged
Nature of Board Gender Diversity: Diversity, Firm Performance, and the Power of Women
Directors as Predictors of Strategic Change.” Organization Science 25, no. 2 (2014): 609-632.
72. Van Gerven, Emma J.G., Annebel H.B. De Hoogh, Deanne N. Den Hartog and Frank D.
Belschak. “Gender Differences in the Perceived Behavior of Narcissistic Leaders.” Journal of
Business Ethics 149 (2018): 329-345.