sustainability
Article
Female Corporate Leadership and Firm Growth Strategy: A
Global Perspective
Lagle Laidoja 1 , Xuanye Li 2 , Wenyuan Liu 1 and Ting Ren 1, *
Citation: Laidoja, L.; Li, X.; Liu, W.;
Ren, T. Female Corporate Leadership
and Firm Growth Strategy: A Global
Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14,
5578. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14095578
Academic Editor:
Christian Vandenberghe
Received: 28 March 2022
Accepted: 30 April 2022
Published: 6 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095578
1 HSBC Business School, Peking University, Shenzhen 518055, China; lagle.laidoja@gmail.com (L.L.);
wenyuanliu@sz.pku.edu.cn (W.L.)
2 Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ 07102, USA; xl463@scarletmail.rutgers.edu
* Correspondence: renting@phbs.pku.edu.cn
Abstract: This study aims to understand the relationship between female corporate leadership and
firm performance based on exploration and exploitation strategies using a global enterprise data set.
Previous studies report conflicting evidence of female corporate leadership on firm performance.
This study applies an exploration–exploitation framework and suggests that the relative advantage
of female corporate leadership relies upon certain aspects of the firm’s growth strategy. The empirical
evidence confirms that the relative advantage of female corporate leadership resides more in the
exploitation than the exploration aspect of a firm’s growth strategy compared to male corporate
leadership. The study thus offers important implications for broader business practices when
considering the alignment between the choice of corporate leadership and firm growth strategy.
Keywords: cross-country; exploitation; exploration; female corporate leadership; growth strategy
1. Introduction
The world has been moving towards greater gender equality. However, the proportion
of women in top management positions remains low compared to that of men in all global
regions. According to World Bank Enterprise Surveys, only 18.5% of firms in the world
have female top managers. Even in the most women-friendly regions, East Asia and Pacific,
females represent 31.9% of the top management in companies. More research on the impact
of managerial gender differences is required to help us understand the phenomenon of the
uneven proportion of female and male managers.
Insufficient research has been carried out on the impact of female top managers on a
firm’s strategic activities, particularly from a global point of view. Previous research has
studied managerial impact on firm exploitation and exploration activities from various
perspectives, such as leadership style [1–3], age-biased leadership [4], entrepreneurship
experience [5], the extensiveness of CEO networks [6], and the regulatory focus of CEOs [7].
Within the field of managerial impact, the literature regarding gender differences has
emphasized several aspects of firm behavior and performance, such as strategic changes [8],
a firm’s risk level [9], innovation facilitation through management task performance [10],
and a firm’s financial performance [11–13]. However, few of these studies examined the
impact of managerial gender differences on the exploitation and exploration activities
of firms. To answer this question, we build the argument for how managerial gender
differences affect a firm’s growth strategy and test the hypothesis on a global dataset.
The present study uses a wide sample of countries represented in the World Bank
Enterprise Surveys database. The empirical portion of the study uses publicly available
data extracted from the World Bank Enterprise Surveys (WBES) and from the World Devel-
opment Indicators (WDI) databases. The relationship between female top managers and
organizational performance is tested on a sample of 129 countries and 99,633 enterprises
using five different measures (sales growth, employment growth, buying fixed assets,
productivity growth, and capacity utilization), which are grouped into two categories to
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 2 of 14

differentiate between exploitation- and exploration-related outcomes. The study aims to

contribute to the existing literature by using cross-country comprehensive data to reveal
gender differences related to managerial decisions with regard to differentiating types of ex-
ploitation and exploration measurements. We found, in general, that the relative advantage
of female corporate leadership resides more on the exploitation than the exploration aspect
of a firm’s growth strategy compared to male corporate leadership. The study thus offers
important implications for broader business practices when considering the alignment
between the choice of corporate leadership and firm growth strategy.

2. Theory and Hypothesis

Various research has suggested that the demographic diversity of management teams
can predict firm performance [14,15]. The female top manager representation is associated
with financial performance [16,17], mergers and acquisitions, research and development
investment [18], and a wide range of outcomes [15]. The relationship between gender diver-
sity and firm-level outcomes has been well-approached, but how gender diversity affects
firm performance has remained inconclusive. The mixed evidence of gender effect may be
attributed to different dimensions of firm-level outcomes, such as value, productivity, and
efficiency. In our study, we examine the impact of female leadership on firm performance
based on the exploitation and exploration activities of firms. Our paper confirms that fe-
male leaders may affect the firm’s growth strategy from the perspective of unique resource
portfolios [19]. Female leaders can bring distinct risk-taking attitudes, leadership styles,
and knowledge that influences the decision-making process of firms.

2.1. The Exploitation and Exploration Activities of Firms

The exploration-exploitation framework has been applied in a series of research to
study innovation and firm performance [20]. Organizations learn through exploring new
possibilities and exploiting old certainties [21]. Exploration uses the knowledge that
shifts away from a firm’s existing knowledge base [22,23] and includes search, discovery,
experimentation, and innovation activities [21,24]. According to March [21], the essence of
exploration is experimentation with new alternatives, and the returns are uncertain, distant,
and often negative; meanwhile, the essence of exploitation is the refinement and extension
of existing competencies, technologies, and paradigms. Exploitation is also associated with
utilizing an organization’s existing knowledge base [23] and includes activities such as the
refinement, implementation, and execution of a particular action [21,24].
Due to the opposing nature of exploitation and exploration, firms may need to make
trade-offs between exploration and exploitation [23]. These trade-off decisions bear un-
certainty in terms of variability and time [21]. Exploration generates larger performance
variations, while exploitation generates a more stable performance for firms [25]. Com-
pared to exploitation, exploration is vulnerable because of its systematic uncertainty, long
time span, long distance from locus action, and adaption [21,25]. The self-reinforcing nature
of organizational routines is a potential cause of rigidity within a firm’s current capabil-
ities [26]. Previous research supported the critical role played by the senior executives
on organizational learning [27–29], and the present study connects individual-level and
firm-level research by examining the impact that female top managers have on a firm’s
exploitation and exploration activities.
To study the impact of gender differences on organizational learning in terms of
exploration and exploitation, we argue that the gender-associated characteristics of top ex-
ecutives may affect organizational strategies. Post et al. [18] provided evidence that female
top management team (TMT) appointments contribute to shaping firms’ strategic decisions.
Cognitive perspectives may explain the gender difference in TMT strategic decision-making,
but recent studies in psychology argue that gender differences in cognitive performance are
small or trivial [30,31]. We try to understand how female leaders’ unique characteristics are
distributed to affect firms’ growth strategies. In the following sections, we mainly discuss
the differences in risk-averse attitude, leadership style, and knowledge-obtaining channels
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 3 of 14

for top executives and the way they affect how firms perform exploration and exploita-
tion strategies. From the perspective of unique resource portfolios [19], female executives
bring distinct risk attitudes and a unique cache of knowledge to TMTs that influence firm
strategic decisions. In general, exploration strategies require risk-taking and a drive for
growth [32], while exploitation requires being innovative, specialized knowledge, and
analytical decision-making.

2.2. Risk-Aversion and Organizational Strategy

Managers who hold risk-averse attitudes are more likely to facilitate exploitation be-
cause the consequences of the exploitation process are more certain and immediate [21,33].
Hence, risk-averse managers are more concerned with survival or aspiration [34]. Manager
bias toward risk-aversion may lead to firms placing too much focus on exploitation [23].
The reliable feedback of exploitation routines reinforces manager confidence in exploitation
and further leads the firm into a “success trap” [35,36]. However, when organizational per-
formance decreases after the exploitation process, managers shift towards exploration [21].
The failure trap of an “endless cycle of failure and unrewarding change” is possible if firms
are committed to excessive exploration [36]. Pursuing either exploration or exploitation
may end with firms being in “competency traps” [23,37].
Different risk preferences and attitudes between female and male top executives affect
organizational strategies [19,38] and risky activities [39]. When it comes to managerial
gender differences in risk taking, female CEOs tend to take significantly less risks compared
to their male counterparts [40]. Khan and Vieito [9] analyzed the risk behavior of female
leaders from a panel of U.S. companies in terms of financial performance and investments
between 1992 and 2004. They found that male executives made more acquisitions and
issued greater debts, while female executives had a wider range of earnings estimates and
used stock options earlier than men. Huang and Kisgen [41] investigated the effect of
executives on a firm’s financial and investment decisions and found a negative relationship
between female representation on boards and firm acquisitions in terms of both number
and size. For R&D investments, some studies showed that female directors can improve
board effectiveness in terms of risk management [42]. However, the lower risk-taking
behavior of female leaders might be a disadvantage in cases where a company has a heavy
focus on growth through acquisitions [18]. Moreover, female-owned businesses were found
to face discrimination when trying to have a loan approved and are charged with higher
interest rates [43–45]. The difficulty in obtaining loans might affect the risk-taking behavior
of female leaders, as opportunities for both genders are not equal when it comes to external
financing. Men, on the other hand, have better access to financing, which might make them
feel more confident when expanding into new markets, allowing them to purchase more
assets and hire extra employees.

2.3. Leadership Style and Organizational Strategy

The particular leadership style of managers affects the exploitative and explorative
innovation of firms [20,46]. Jansen, Vera, and Crossan [2] found that transformational
leadership facilitates exploratory innovation, while transactional leadership is positively
associated with exploitative innovation. When there is a mismatch between leadership type
and learning outputs, transformational leadership suppresses exploitative innovation, and
transactional leadership suppresses exploratory innovation [2]. In transition economies,
when firms have the chance to break with administrative heritage, during the initial stages,
an authoritarian leadership style is positively associated with exploitative organizational
learning; however, when leaders take on a participatory leadership style later, explorative
organizational learning is encouraged [1].
Transformational leaders can influence employee identification through their orga-
nization mission [47]. Reuvers et al. [48] revealed a positive relationship between trans-
formational leadership and innovative behavior, but employees report more innovative
behavior when transformational leadership is displayed by male managers. Additionally,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 4 of 14

Becic and Vojinic [49] indicated that firms innovate more in terms of goods and services
when they have a male leader. Females have been found to have a more democratic or
participatory style, while men prefer a more autocratic or direct style [50]. Eagly and John-
son [50] found that females involve more people and spend more time on decision-making.
Moreover, female leaders are found to bring different viewpoints and skills to the board,
which helps to analyze relevant information and improves the general decision-making
outcomes [51,52]. Therefore, females involve more people in the decision-making process
and consider more alternatives, while males like to make decisions themselves. Compared
to males, experiments have found that females are generally more patient [53], long-term
oriented [54], and altruistic [55].

2.4. Knowledge-Obtaining Channel and Organizational Strategy

How knowledge flows within firms also affect the exploration and exploitation ac-
tivities of managers. There are multiple knowledge-obtaining channels, such as hori-
zontal knowledge inflows, geographical clustering, and headquarter–subsidiary links.
Mom et al. [56] found that top-down knowledge inflows are positively associated with
the exploitation activities of managers, whereas bottom-up and horizontal knowledge
inflows are positively associated with the exploration activities of managers. Furthermore,
exploration and exploitation are not mutually exclusive at the individual manager level [56].
Geographical clustering builds connections that enable interfirm knowledge exchanges
and that enhance the knowledge creation of member firms. A cluster with more firms
and that follows an explorative strategy is more likely to increase its knowledge creation
capability. Although there are external exchange methods such as exchanging or purchas-
ing, internal exploitation by developing knowledge inside the firm can also be a preferred
choice when the firms within the cluster can readily access complementary knowledge
both internally and externally [57]. For multinational corporations, managers in head
offices and subsidiaries can facilitate subsidiary market learning capabilities in exploration
and exploitation activities by transferring and managing resources that are inherent to
the parent firm, subsidiary firm, and the parent–subsidiary relationship [58]. After the
firm obtains external knowledge, multiple organizational conditions also affect knowledge
exploration and exploitation [59]. Besides the context of the information channel, the
internal characteristics of firms, such as knowledge distance, a firm’s prior experience with
university research centers, technological capabilities, and the tacitness of knowledge can
affect the application of external knowledge [59].
Female leadership may provide unique knowledge-related resources and viewpoints
to TMTs. Female directors bring strategic resources that improve board governance and
performance [60]. Female leaders outperform male leaders due to their market orientation
or through being innovative and dynamic. Davis et al. [61] analyzed SMEs in the U.S.
service sector and found that female top executives outperform male leaders due to their
higher market orientation. However, Munoz and Saran [62] studied Mexican small busi-
nesses owners and found that both genders have similar market orientations and showed
that women are more important for their firms to be innovative and dynamic. Dezsö and
Ross [10] also found that female executives only tend to improve firm performance if the
company focuses on innovation as a part of its strategy.
In summary, the risk-averse attitude, leadership style, and knowledge-obtaining
channels of female managers affect their decision making in exploration and exploitation
strategies. Based on the previous discussion, we proposed that the relative advantage of
female top managers compared to their male counterparts varies across the exploitation
and exploration measures of firms. More specifically:
H1. Female top managers perform worse on exploration measures compared to their male counterparts.
H2. Female top managers perform better on exploitation measures compared to their male counterparts.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 5 of 14

3. Methods
3.1. Data
A standardized data set for all countries was obtained from the WBES web page.
The original data set included 160,456 observations and 148 countries. Surveys without
the variable indicating whether an establishment had a female top manager or not were
eliminated. The final sample included 99,366 observations across 129 countries from 2008
to 2016. WBES data set were used as they provide firm-level information that is suitable for
investigating the relationship between female corporate leadership and firm performance
globally. Standardized data ensure consistency in terms of the measures across countries.
The original World Bank data were collected through interviewing top managers in
the private sector in different countries. Every year, new surveys are carried out and added
to the WBES web page. The number of companies interviewed depends on the size of the
country. In large economies, the number of surveyed firms is around 1200–1800; in the
medium countries, around 360 firms are surveyed; and in small countries, around 150 firms
are surveyed. Stratified random sampling is used to make sure that all groups within the
economies are represented.
Country-level data such as GDP per capita were added to the data set and were
extracted from the World Development Indicators, and values were set in accordance with
the year in which the survey was conducted.

3.2. Dependent Variables

Exploration is measured based on sales growth [63], employment growth, and the
buying of fixed assets. Exploitation is measured based on productivity growth and ca-
pacity utilization [63]. Sales growth facilitates demand-pull innovation, which further
contributes to knowledge creation in exploration strategies [64]. At the industry level,
productivity growth measures labor exploitation [65], and capacity utilization measures
resource exploitation [66].
Sales growth (%) measures the change in the annual sales of the current fiscal year
(time of the survey) from a previous period and is expressed as a percentage. According
to the WBES, the interval between comparable years is usually two fiscal years; however,
in some cases, a three-year period is used instead. To make the results fit together, an
annualized measure is used. All of the sales values were converted to U.S. dollars using
the exchange rates from the years when surveys were conducted. Then, the values were
deflated to 2009 using the USD deflator.
Employment growth (%) represents the changes in full-time employment between
the current fiscal year and the previously measured period and is expressed as a percent-
age. Similar to real annual sales growth, the annualized measure is used to stabilize the
differences between different time intervals between the current and previous year of
measurements used, according to the WBES.
Buying fixed assets is a binary variable that shows whether a firm bought fixed assets
in the last fiscal year. According to the WBES, fixed assets could be new or used equipment,
machinery, land, or buildings.
Productivity growth (%) is the change in the labor productivity between the current
fiscal year and the previous period. Similar to the previous measures, the change between
the current and previous years varies between two and three years, and annual mea-
surements are used. It is measured by dividing real annual sales by full-time permanent
workers. All sales values were converted to USD, just as they were for the first performance
measure, and sales were deflated to 2009 levels using the USD deflator, according to WBES.
Capacity utilization (%) shows how well the firm utilizes its production capacity. It is
measured by comparing the current output with the maximum possible output using all of
the resources in the WBES possible. This measure is available for manufacturing firms only.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 6 of 14

3.3. Independent Variables

Female top manager is a binary variable that shows whether the highest-ranked
manager or CEO of an establishment is female. According to the World Bank Enterprise
Survey, the term “female top manager” indicates that a firm’s top decision maker is a
woman, regardless of her title or ownership; she can be a CEO, CFO, part of the top
management team, or owner if she works as the manager of the firm. The variable coded 1
indicates that the top manager is female, and this variable is 0 otherwise.

3.4. Control Variables

Female ownership is a binary variable that shows whether women are represented
in the firm’s ownership. An outcome of 1 indicates that at least one of the firm owners is
female and 0 otherwise. Female-owned businesses are often described as underperforming
male-owned firms [67]. Marlow and McAdam [68] criticized calling female-owned firms
underperforming but admitted that gendered socio-economic positioning results in women-
owned firms experiencing constrained performance.
Top manager’s experience is a continuous variable that is measured in years. It shows
how long the top manager of the firm has worked in the sector that the firm operates
in. The upper echelons theory suggests that the strategic choices that managers make are
influenced by their background, including past experience [69]. Various authors [70] have
related managers previous experience to firm performance.
Firm size is a continuous variable that is measured using the average number of
permanent full-time workers. Previous literature indicates an existing relationship between
firm size and performance [71–73].
Firm age is a continuous variable that represents how long a firm has legally existed.
It is measured in years and is calculated by deducting the time of legal establishment
from the current year (i.e., 2017). Newer companies are often found to lack legitimacy and
under-perform compared to older companies [74–76].
Access to finance is a binary variable that shows whether a firm has a bank loan or
line of credit. A variable outcome 1 indicates that the firm has access to finance, and the
value is 0 otherwise. It is an important measure for developing countries because the lack
of opportunities for external funding can slow firm growth and innovation and make it
hard to survive difficult situations such as changes in the economy, natural disasters, or
armed conflicts. Moreover, female-owned businesses are found to face discrimination when
attempting to have a loan approved and are charged with higher interest rates [43], which
might also apply to female managed firms.
GDP per capita (current USD) is used to test the effect of a country’s economic
situation on firm performance. GDP indexes were extracted from the WBDI and set in
accordance with the years of data used for the research. Values presented in USD were
recalculated into log values.
Business sector fixed-effect dummies show whether a firm belongs to the manufac-
turing or service sector. As industries are not consistently represented in the surveys from
all of the countries, basic sector measurements were used instead. Women are more likely
to be top managers in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector [77].
Region fixed-effect dummies were created to test the effect of different geographical
locations. The old WBES classification of regions was used, which divides regions into six
subgroups: the Africa region (AFR), the East Asia and Pacific region (EAP), the Eastern Eu-
ropean and Central Asia region (ECA), the Latin America and the Caribbean region (LAC),
the Middle East and North Africa region (MNA), and the South Asia region (SAR). Within
a region, development, political stability, geographic location, climate, and other factors
might be more similar than between regions. Therefore, there are characteristics in every
region that make it unique from the rest. This might create advantages or disadvantages
for its companies and female leaders.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 7 of 14

3.5. Empirical Model

Based on the analysis of the previously published literature about female executives
and firm performance relationships, and according to the upper echelons theory, five
models could test the main effect of the key independent variable on all performance
measures. These models are specified as follows:

Per f ormance1,2,3,4,5 = β 0 + β 1 FTM + β 2 Top Manager 0 s Experience+

β 3 Female Owner + β 4 Firm Size + β 5 Firm Age+
β 6 Access to Finance + β 7 GDP per capita + β 8 Busines Sector +
β 9 Region + ε

where:
Performance1 = sales growth;
Performance2 = employment growth;
Performance3 = buying fixed assets;
Performance4 = productivity growth;
Performance5 = capacity utilization.
As the dependent variable of Model 5 is only measured for manufacturing companies,
the business sector dummies were removed.
As the dependent variables included both continuous and binary variables, both the
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and logit estimation methods were used for the analysis.
Based on the characteristics of the dependent variable, OLS was used for sales growth,
employment growth, productivity growth, and capacity utilization as the dependent variable,
while Logit regression was used for buying fixed assets, which was the dependent variable.

4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
From the sample of 99,366 firms, 53.95% belonged to the manufacturing sector, and
45.05% belonged to the service sector. Out of 53,606 manufacturing companies, 13.78% had
top female leaders, and out of 44,760 service companies, 18.28% had female top managers.
This shows that the service sector has slightly more women in high positions than the
manufacturing industry, but in general, the gap between genders in top management
positions is wide in both sectors.
From all of the respondents, 27.15% belonged to the Eastern European and Central
Asia region (ECA), 17.51% belonged to the African Region (AFR), 15.44% belonged to
the Latin America and the Caribbean region (LAC), 14.85% belonged to the East Asia
and Pacific region (EPA), 14.69% belonged to the South Asia region (SAR), and 8.70%
belonged to the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA). The highest percentages of
female managers compared to men were found in the EAP (27.12%), ECA (18.50%), LAC
(15.74%), and AFR (13.93%) regions. The smallest percentages of female leaders were found
in the SAR (7.67%) and in the MENA (6.63%) regions, indicating that all regions have a
substantive gender gap in terms of top management positions.
The exploitation and exploration measures such as sales growth, employment growth,
productivity growth, and capacity utilization show a wide distribution, ranging from 100 to
−100 percent. An even greater distance between minimum and maximum values comes
up in the data related to firm size and firm age. The firm size, which is measured by the
average number of permanent full-time workers, ranges from 0 to 5075, which reflects the
inclusion of small micro-firms as well as very large enterprises. Firm age varies between
0 to 214, which means that the sample includes both newly established startups as well
as mature enterprises that are a couple of centuries old. This means that the selected
sample of companies includes a wide range of different characteristics and exploitation
and exploration results. The means of the performance measures show that in general, the
sales growth, employment growth, and capacity utilization are positive throughout the
sample, while productivity growth and buying fixed assets are rather negative.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 8 of 14

The Pearson’s correlation matrix seen in Table 1 reveals significant correlations between
most of the variables used for the study. There are significant but weak correlations
between the independent and dependent variables. Sales growth, productivity growth,
and capacity utilization have a positive relationship with FTM, while employment growth
and buying fixed assets have a rather negative effect. The control variables have many
significant relationships with the independent and dependent variables, showing the
importance of including them in models to predict the effect of the explanatory variable on
the dependent variables.

4.2. Regression Analysis

In the following, we present the regression results of the OLS and logit models. Table 2
presents the regression results for all five models. The Breusch–Pagan/Cook–Weisberg test
detected heteroskedasticity in all of OLS models, and robust standard errors were used to
assure homoskedasticity. The variance inflation factor (VIF) detected no multicollinearity
problem, as the VIF factors were all below 10.
Table 2 reveals the relationships between the key independent variable and the five
dependent variables, testing the hypotheses. Firstly, a significant negative relationship
was noticed between the top female manager variable and the three dependent variables
measuring firm exploration activities (sales growth, employment growth, and buying
fixed assets), supporting Hypothesis 1. Secondly, the effect of the top female manager
variable on productivity growth is positive but statistically insignificant. Additionally, a
significant positive relationship was noticed between the female top manager variable
and firm capacity utilization. Combining the latter two findings supports Hypothesis 2.
In summary, the results show that the overall relative advantage of female top managers
compared to their male counterparts vary across exploitation and exploration measures.
The significant negative results found in the models using annual sales growth, annual
employment growth, and buying fixed assets as the dependent variables support H1, which
states that “Female top managers perform worse on exploration measures compared to
their male counterparts”. Expansion measures were expected to require more risk-taking
and drive for growth, which is associated with more masculine personality traits. The
current results are consistent with Huang and Kisgen [41], who found a negative association
between female representation on boards and firm acquisitions both in terms of number
and size. Although their results indicate exploration through acquisitions, the current
findings suggest that women also negatively affect other exploration measures such as
sales growth, employment growth, and buying fixed assets.
The significant positive result in the model using capacity utilization (%) as the de-
pendent variable supports H2, which states that “Female top managers perform better on
exploitation measures compared to their male counterparts”. Exploitation strategies are expected
to require more innovative, careful, and analytical decision-making. Previous studies
found female leaders to be associated with more democratic and participatory leadership
styles than their male counterparts [50], indicating that they involve more people in the
decision-making process. In addition, the different viewpoints and skills of female leaders
were found to improve decision-making [51,52]. Dezsö and Ross [10] found that female
executives only tend to improve firm performance if the company focuses on innovation
as a part of its strategy, and current results confirm that female top managers do have a
positive effect on exploitation measures such as capacity utilization that require innovative,
careful, and analytical decision-making.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 9 of 14

Table 1. Mean, Standard Deviation and Pearson Correlation.

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Sales Growth 1.302 29.184 1
2 Employment Growth 4.357 17.092 0.22 * 1
3 Buying Fixed Assets 0.429 0.495 0.09 * 0.10 * 1
4 Productivity Growth −2.421 29.472 0.87 * −0.26 * 0.03 * 1
5 Capacity Utilization 75.562 21.793 0.06 * 0.10 * 0 0.01 1
6 Female Top Manager 0.332 0.471 0.01 −0.02 * −0.04 * 0.02 * 0.03 * 1
7 Female Ownership 0.332 0.471 0.02 * −0.02 * 0.05 * 0.03 * −0.02 * 0.41 * 1
8 Top Manager’s Experience 17.105 10.794 −0.02 * −0.09 * 0.07 * 0.02 * −0.05 * −0.06 * 0.06 * 1
9 Firm Size 78.907 201.389 0.03 * 0.03 * 0.13 * 0 0.08 * −0.03 * 0.03 * 0.07 * 1
10 Firm Age 17.962 14.817 −0.04 * −0.13 * 0.05 * 0.02 * 0.04 * −0.04 * 0.05 * 0.38 * 0.18 * 1
11 Access to Finance 0.357 0.479 0.05 * 0.03 * 0.24 * 0.02 * −0.02 * −0.01 * 0.08 * 0.12 * 0.14 * 0.12 * 1
12 GDP per capita (log) 7.998 1.087 0 −0.02 * 0.08 * 0.01 0.01 * 0.00 * 0.06 0.15 * 0.05 * 0.10 * 0.16 * 1
Note: Significance level * p < 0.05.

Table 2. Regression Results.

Exploration Exploitation
Sales Growth Employment Growth Buying Fixed Assets Productivity Growth Capacity Utilization
Independent Variable:
Female Top Manager −1.092 ** −0.888 *** −0.304 *** 0.021 1.740 ***
(0.364) (0.188) (0.023) (0.372) (0.352)
Control Variables:
Female Ownership 0.855 ** −0.347 * 0.196 *** 0.859 ** −1.721 ***
(0.275) (0.144) (0.018) (0.282) (0.253)
Top Manager’s Experience −0.015 −0.069 *** 0.003 *** 0.049 *** −0.019
(0.011) (0.006) (0.001) (0.012) (0.011)
Firm Size 0.003 *** 0.005 *** 0.001 *** −0.001 * 0.007 ***
(0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000)
Firm Age −0.105 *** −0.150 *** −0.002 *** 0.022 ** −0.072 ***
(0.008) (0.005) (0.001) (0.008) (0.008)
Access to finance 1.867 *** 1.840 *** 0.901 *** 0.137 −1.152 ***
(0.237) (0.128) (0.016) (0.244) (0.225)
GDP per capita (log) 0.702 *** 0.078 0.016 * 0.475 *** 1.142 ***
(0.138) (0.068) (0.008) (0.140) (0.132)
Region Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Business Sector Fixed Effect Yes Yes Yes Yes —
Constant −1.229 7.979 *** −1.441 *** −7.144 *** 72.263 ***
(1.053) (0.540) (0.063) (1.072) (1.005)
N 60941 76170 82228 59493 40869
R-sq 0.024 0.029 0.015 0.052
Adj. R-sq 0.024 0.029 0.014 0.051
Pseudo R-sq 0.072
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, two-tailed test.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 10 of 14

It is worth noting that we found positive significant relationships between the control
variables of female ownership and the dependent variables of real annual sales growth,
buying fixed assets, and annual productivity growth. The dependent variables of annual
employment growth and capacity utilization (%), however, are significantly negatively
related to female ownership. Different from having females in managerial roles, having
females as owners generates mixed effects on firm exploration and exploitation. We infer
that the difference is caused by both gender differences and the differences in functional
roles. The owners are less involved in operational decision making, and female owners
are less likely to point out operational growth issues such as employee recruitment and
capacity utilization. In terms of strategic decision-making issues, in which owners are more
involved, female owners contribute more to resource connection and endorsement for the
firms to obtain financial resources for buying fixed assets and are less risk-averse and have
a drive for growth.

5. Discussions and Conclusions

5.1. Theoretical Contributions
The present study generates a threefold contribution to the existing literature by
using cross-country comprehensive data sets. A sample of 129 countries of which the
greater part consists of developing nations, provides new evidence about the relationship
between female top managers and firm exploitation and exploration strategies. While
previous research was heavily reliant on developed countries such as the U.S., the current
analysis provides a broader understanding of the topic. The results indicate that female
top managers exert differential influence over firm performance according to the firm’s
strategic focus of exploration and exploitation.
Although the vast majority of previous findings indicated a positive relationship
between female top managers and firm performance, some other papers found the rela-
tionship to be negative or insignificant. Therefore, it was hypothesized that the relative
advantage of female top managers compared to their male counterparts varies across
performance measures. Mixed results that are dependent on the choice of performance
measures are consistent with Carter, Simkins, and Simpson [78], who also found that
female leaders have a positive effect on some exploitation and exploration measures and
have a negative effect on others. Therefore, it is important to consider different types of
performance measures when evaluating whether female top managers perform better than
their male counterparts.
As previous studies from literature have criticized the use of financial performance
alone to identify advantage of female corporate leadership, the current study tested the
effect of female top managers on five different performance measures provided by the
WBES. These performance measures were grouped into two different categories. It was
hypothesized that female top managers would perform better on exploitation measures
(H2) and worse on exploration measures (H1) compared to their male counterparts. Both
H1 and H2 were supported by empirical findings.
In conclusion, the relative advantage of female top managers compared to their male
counterparts was found to be different across exploitation and exploration measures. More
specifically, female top managers were found to perform better on exploitation measures
and worse on exploration measures compared to their male counterparts. This research fills
the research gap on the impact of female top managers on the exploitative and explorative
growth strategies of firms from a global perspective. The study provided exploratory
results for an important aspect to consider in future research on the relationship between
gender and the exploitation and exploration strategies of firms.

5.2. Implications
This research generates both research and practical implications. In the present re-
search, the findings enrich our knowledge of managerial gender difference and firm’s
growth strategy from a global perspective. In practice, the research findings offer guidance
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 11 of 14

for electing top managers. On the one hand, female top managers were found to have a
significant positive effect on the exploitation measures of firms, such as capacity utilization.
Therefore, firms who wish to improve their overall capacity utilization could benefit from
female top executives. On the other hand, female top executives were found to have a
significant negative effect on exploration measures such as sales growth, employment
growth, and buying fixed assets. Therefore, if a firm’s strategy is physical expansion,
it is more likely that the firm selects men as its top managers. This might be related to
risk aversion that female managers have [41] or gender-based discrimination regarding
access to finance [43,44], which is an important element for firm exploration. While female
leaders have more difficulties obtaining loans and credit, they might have developed skills
to use existing resources more efficiently but hold back from growth that requires more
financial resources.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

Although the current research makes valuable contributions to the existing literature,
its findings might suffer from some limitations. The WBES dataset includes mainly de-
veloping countries. Some of these countries might suffer from higher levels of gender
inequality or lower performance measures because of the country’s economic situation,
natural disasters, or political instability. In addition, the data set is cross-sectional in nature;
therefore, there is a potential endogeneity issue that is difficult to address in the present
context. Despite these limitations, the comprehensive data set provides an overview of
the situation of female executives around the world and their effect on firm performance.
Overall, the sample supports the premise that females are better in some performance
measures and that men are better in others.
Future research should conduct more cross-country analysis to further investigate the
relationship between female executives and firm performance, as it provides a broader view
of the topic with mixed results. Focusing only on big and successful firms in developed
countries might provide us with somewhat biased results. Therefore, future research
could test the effect of other country-specific moderators to identify important factors that
could strengthen or weaken the positive or negative effects of female executives on firm
performance outcomes. For instance, future research could combine culture with other
country-level characteristics such as religion, laws, and politics that might have a direct
or indirect effect on gender equality in different countries towards career opportunities as
well as the perceptions of females and their roles in society.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.L. and T.R.; Formal analysis, L.L. and X.L.; Methodology,
T.R.; Supervision, T.R.; Validation, X.L. and W.L.; Writing—original draft, L.L.; Writing—review & editing,
X.L., W.L. and T.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The World Bank Enterprise Survey data are publicly available from the
official website.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Dixon, S.E.; Meyer, K.E.; Day, M. Exploitation and exploration learning and the development of organizational capabilities: A
cross-case analysis of the Russian oil industry. Hum. Relat. 2007, 60, 1493–1523. [CrossRef]
2. Jansen, J.J.; Vera, D.; Crossan, M. Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental
dynamism. Leadersh. Q. 2009, 20, 5–18. [CrossRef]
3. Makri, M.; Scandura, T.A. Exploring the effects of creative CEO leadership on innovation in high-technology firms. Leadersh. Q.
2010, 21, 75–88. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 12 of 14

4. Spisak, B.R.; Grabo, A.E.; Arvey, R.D.; Van Vugt, M. The age of exploration and exploitation: Younger-looking leaders endorsed
for change and older-looking leaders endorsed for stability. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 805–816. [CrossRef]
5. Laureiro-Martínez, D.; Canessa, N.; Brusoni, S.; Zollo, M.; Hare, T.; Alemanno, F.; Cappa, S.F. Frontopolar cortex and decision-
making efficiency: Comparing brain activity of experts with different professional background during an exploration-exploitation
task. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014, 7, 927. [CrossRef]
6. Cao, Q.; Simsek, Z.; Zhang, H. Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. J. Manag.
Stud. 2010, 47, 1272–1296.
7. Kammerlander, N.; Burger, D.; Fust, A.; Fueglistaller, U. Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized
enterprises: The effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus. J. Bus. Ventur. 2015, 30, 582–602. [CrossRef]
8. Del Carmen Triana, M.; Richard, O.C.; Su, W. Gender diversity in senior management, strategic change, and firm performance:
Examining the mediating nature of strategic change in high tech firms. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 1681–1693. [CrossRef]
9. Khan, W.A.; Vieito, J.P. CEO gender and firm performance. J. Econ. Bus. 2013, 67, 55–66. [CrossRef]
10. Dezsö, C.L.; Ross, D.G. Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation.
Strateg. Manag. J. 2012, 33, 1072–1089. [CrossRef]
11. Naseem, M.A.; Lin, J.; ur Rehman, R.; Ahmad, M.I.; Ali, R. Does capital structure mediate the link between CEO characteristics
and firm performance? Manag. Decis. 2019, 58, 164–181. [CrossRef]
12. Peni, E. CEO and chairperson characteristics and firm performance. J. Manag. Gov. 2014, 18, 185–205. [CrossRef]
13. Smith, N.; Smith, V.; Verner, M. Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2500 Danish firms. Int.
J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2006, 55, 569–593. [CrossRef]
14. Jukka, T. Top management team demography and firm operating performance: A path analysis. J. Strategy Manag. 2021, 14, 19–34.
[CrossRef]
15. Roberson, Q.; Holmes IV, O.; Perry, J.L. Transforming research on diversity and firm performance: A dynamic capabilities
perspective. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 189–216. [CrossRef]
16. Hoobler, J.M.; Masterson, C.R.; Nkomo, S.M.; Michel, E.J. The business case for women leaders: Meta-analysis, research critique,
and path forward. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 2473–2499. [CrossRef]
17. Gupta, V.K.; Mortal, S.; Chakrabarty, B.; Guo, X.; Turban, D.B. CFO gender and financial statement irregularities. Acad. Manag. J.
2020, 63, 802–831. [CrossRef]
18. Post, C.; Lokshin, B.; Boone, C. What changes after women enter top management teams? A gender-based model of strategic
renewal. Acad. Manag. J. 2022, 65, 273–303. [CrossRef]
19. Jeong, S.H.; Harrison, D.A. Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating: Meta-analytic outcomes of women as CEOs and
TMT members. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 1219–1252. [CrossRef]
20. Wilden, R.; Hohberger, J.; Devinney, T.M.; Lavie, D. Revisiting James March (1991): Whither exploration and exploitation? Strateg.
Organ. 2018, 16, 352–369. [CrossRef]
21. March, J.G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 1991, 2, 71–87. [CrossRef]
22. Lavie, D.; Rosenkopf, L. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 797–818. [CrossRef]
23. Lavie, D.; Stettner, U.; Tushman, M.L. Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2010, 4,
109–155. [CrossRef]
24. Cheng, Y.T.; Van de Ven, A.H. Learning the innovation journey: Order out of chaos? Organ. Sci. 1996, 7, 593–614. [CrossRef]
25. He, Z.L.; Wong, P.K. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15, 481–494.
[CrossRef]
26. Leonard-Barton, D. Wellspring of Knowledge; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1995.
27. Lubatkin, M.H.; Simsek, Z.; Ling, Y.; Veiga, J.F. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role
of top management team behavioral integration. J. Manag. 2006, 32, 646–672. [CrossRef]
28. Gibson, C.B.; Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Manag. J.
2004, 47, 209–226.
29. O’Reilly C.A., III; Tushman, M.L. Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. Calif. Manag. Rev.
2011, 53, 5–22. [CrossRef]
30. Reilly, D.; Neumann, D.L.; Andrews, G. Gender differences in reading and writing achievement: Evidence from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Am. Psychol. 2019, 74, 445–458. [CrossRef]
31. Hyde, J.S. Gender similarities and differences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014, 65, 373–398. [CrossRef]
32. Luo, B.; Zheng, S.; Ji, H.; Liang, L. Ambidextrous leadership and TMT-member ambidextrous behavior: The role of TMT
behavioral integration and TMT risk propensity. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 338–359. [CrossRef]
33. Lewin, A.Y.; Long, C.P.; Carroll, T.N. The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organ. Sci. 1999, 10, 535–550. [CrossRef]
34. March, J.G.; Shapira, Z. Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychol. Rev. 1992, 99, 172–183. [CrossRef]
35. Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strateg. Manag. J.
1992, 13, 111–125. [CrossRef]
36. Levinthal, D.A.; March, J.G. The myopia of learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 95–112. [CrossRef]
37. Liu, W. Knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and competency trap. Knowl. Process Manag. 2006, 13, 144–161.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 13 of 14

38. Yang, P.; Riepe, J.; Moser, K.; Pull, K.; Terjesen, S. Women directors, firm performance, and firm risk: A causal perspective.
Leadersh. Q. 2019, 30, 101297. [CrossRef]
39. Adams, R.B.; Ragunathan, V. Lehman Sisters. 2017. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3046451 (accessed on 22 April 2022).
40. Faccio, M.; Marchica, M.T.; Mura, R. CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. J. Corp. Financ.
2016, 39, 193–209. [CrossRef]
41. Huang, J.; Kisgen, D.J. Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives overconfident relative to female executives? J. Financ.
Econ. 2013, 108, 822–839. [CrossRef]
42. Chen, S.; Ni, X.; Tong, J.Y. Gender diversity in the boardroom and risk management: A case of R&D investment. J. Bus. Ethics
2016, 136, 599–621.
43. Blanchard, L.; Zhao, B.; Yinger, J. Do lenders discriminate against minority and woman entrepreneurs? J. Urban Econ. 2008, 63,
467–497. [CrossRef]
44. Hertz, N. Women and Banks: Are Female Customers Facing Discrimination? Institute for Public Policy Research: London, UK, 2011.
45. Bui, A.T.; Nguyen, C.V.; Pham, T.P.; Phung, D.T. Female leadership and borrowing constraints: Evidence from an emerging
economy. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2019, 81, 101332. [CrossRef]
46. Lawrence, E.T.; Tworoger, L.; Ruppel, C.P.; Yurova, Y. TMT leadership ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and exploitation
behaviors for innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2022, 25, 703–719. [CrossRef]
47. Kark, R.; Shamir, B.; Chen, G. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. J. Appl. Psychol.
2003, 88, 246–255. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Reuvers, M.; Van Engen, M.L.; Vinkenburg, C.J.; Wilson-Evered, E. Transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour:
Exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2008, 17, 227–244. [CrossRef]
49. Becic, M.; Vojinic, P. The Role of Female Top Manager in Innovation Activities: Case of CEECs? Firms. In Proceedings of the
Economics and Finance Conferences, London, UK, 22–25 May 2018.
50. Eagly, A.H.; Johnson, B.T. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 108, 233. [CrossRef]
51. Colaco, H.M.; Myers, P.; Nitkin, M.R. Pathways to leadership: Board independence, diversity and the emerging pipeline in the
United States for women directors. Int. J. Discl. Gov. 2011, 8, 122–147. [CrossRef]
52. Lückerath-Rovers, M. Women on boards and firm performance. J. Manag. Gov. 2013, 17, 491–509. [CrossRef]
53. Castillo, M.; Ferraro, P.J.; Jordan, J.L.; Petrie, R. The today and tomorrow of kids: Time preferences and educational outcomes of
children. J. Public Econ. 2011, 95, 1377–1385. [CrossRef]
54. Silverman, I.W. Gender differences in delay of gratification: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles 2003, 49, 451–463. [CrossRef]
55. Andreoni, J.; Vesterlund, L. Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Q. J. Econ. 2001, 116, 293–312. [CrossRef]
56. Mom, T.J.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.; Volberda, H.W. Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of
top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. J. Manag. Stud. 2007, 44, 910–931. [CrossRef]
57. Arikan, A.T. Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2009, 34,
658–676.
58. Özsomer, A.; Gençtürk, E. A resource-based model of market learning in the subsidiary: The capabilities of exploration and
exploitation. J. Int. Mark. 2003, 11, 1–29. [CrossRef]
59. Bierly, P.E., III; Damanpour, F.; Santoro, M.D. The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration
and exploitation. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 46, 481–509. [CrossRef]
60. Chatjuthamard, P.; Jiraporn, P.; Lee, S.M. Does board gender diversity weaken or strengthen executive risk-taking incentives?
PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258163. [CrossRef]
61. Davis, P.S.; Babakus, E.; Englis, P.D.; Pett, T. The influence of CEO gender on market orientation and performance in service small
and medium-sized service businesses. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2010, 48, 475–496. [CrossRef]
62. Munoz, L.; Saran, A. Market orientation, innovation, and dynamism from an ownership and gender approach: Evidence from
Mexico. Int. J. Manag. Mark. Res. 2012, 5, 1–18.
63. Auh, S.; Menguc, B. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58,
1652–1661. [CrossRef]
64. Colombo, M.G.; Delmastro, M. Technology-based entrepreneurs: Does internet make a difference? Small Bus. Econ. 2001, 16,
177–190. [CrossRef]
65. Zafirovski, M. Measuring and making sense of labor exploitation in contemporary society: A comparative analysis. Rev. Radic.
Polit. Econ. 2003, 35, 462–484. [CrossRef]
66. Kirkley, J.; Paul, C.J.M.; Squires, D. Capacity and capacity utilization in common-pool resource industries. Environ. Resour. Econ.
2002, 22, 71–97. [CrossRef]
67. Rosa, P.; Carter, S.; Hamilton, D. Gender as a determinant of small business performance: Insights from a British study. Small Bus.
Econ. 1996, 8, 463–478. [CrossRef]
68. Marlow, S.; McAdam, M. Gender and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate and challenging myths; exploring the mystery of the
under-performing female entrepreneur. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2013, 19, 114–124. [CrossRef]
69. Hambrick, D.C.; Mason, P.A. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9,
193–206. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5578 14 of 14

70. Brüderl, J.; Preisendörfer, P.; Ziegler, R. Survival chances of newly founded business organizations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1992, 57,
227–242. [CrossRef]
71. Covin, J.G.; Green, K.M.; Slevin, D.P. Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation–sales growth rate relationship.
Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 30, 57–81. [CrossRef]
72. Poon, J.M.; Ainuddin, R.A.; Junit, S.O.H. Effects of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance. Int.
Small Bus. J. 2006, 24, 61–82. [CrossRef]
73. Wiklund, J.; Shepherd, D. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. J. Bus. Ventur.
2005, 20, 71–91. [CrossRef]
74. Delmar, F.; Shane, S. Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. J. Bus. Ventur. 2004, 19, 385–410.
[CrossRef]
75. Choi, Y.R.; Shepherd, D.A. Stakeholder perceptions of age and other dimensions of newness. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 573–596.
[CrossRef]
76. Wiklund, J.; Baker, T.; Shepherd, D. The age-effect of financial indicators as buffers against the liability of newness. J. Bus. Ventur.
2010, 25, 423–437. [CrossRef]
77. Amin, M. The Critical Importance of Data Dollection Efforts in Developing Countries: The Case of Gender. 2014. Available
online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/334031468188332769/pdf/99337-BRI-Box393195B-PUBLIC-Gender-
31.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2022).
78. Carter, D.A.; D’Souza, F.; Simkins, B.J.; Simpson, W.G. The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and
firm financial performance. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2010, 18, 396–414. [CrossRef]