How Women Directors Influence Corporate Governance and Firm Dissertation

How Women Directors Influence Corporate Governance and Firm Performance - Dissertation ExampleWomen select been shown to have a positive influence on a mature, from aspects of participation such as attendance and dutiful diligence, to higher rates of pay for directors because of observable increases in performance which de none higher rates of return. The egg-producing(prenominal) presence on a corporeal board provides a variety of advantages to the overall performance of a firm. Male Domination in the Board Room agree to Gomez and Moore the statistics of female representation on corporate boards show a disproportionate representation of women on boards in relation to their fictitious characters in society as consumers and employees. According to Sparrow, only 15% of the board members in the united States are women, with only 1% existence CEOs. In comparison, Sweden has 23%, Norway has 29%, Finland 20%, and Denmark 18%, because of Scandinavian policies that are encouraging th e expansion of roles for women at the corporate level. However, in other European companies there is a lesser representation than in the United States. However, the problem with the statistics is that it does not reflect the come up of female board members who are no more(prenominal) than a trophy member, who holds several positions on the boards of multiple companies, decreasing the actual percentage of women who hold these positions. According to Reeves Womens lack of representation on boards is significant because boards make high level policy decisions that affect whopping numbers of people, including shareholders, employees, and ultimately consumers (19). When women are represented on boards, there seems to be a ripple pith as more higher level management positions are then held by women within an organization. According to Reeves, the increases in CEOs that are women have gone from nine in 2006, ten in 2007, twelve in 2008, and 13 in 2009, so the power balance is shifting, but by 2009, that number of 13 still only represented 2.6% of all corporate CEOs. Reeves reports that while the average lodge has 21.8 corporate officers, only 3.6 of these positions are held by women. In 2006, 75% of the companies on the Fortune 500 had no women in sort out-earning positions within the corporate structure. An example to the social deficit that this creates can be seen where women are more involved than men in the healthcare decisions for themselves and for their families(however) more than one third of the worlds top 500 healthcare and pharmaceutical companies have no women on their corporate boards (20). According to Peterson and Philpot, the professional backgrounds of board members on corporate boards shows that women are just as qualified in experience and background as are the men, but that they serve less frequently on executive committees than do men. Peterson and Philpot also assure that gender is related to the way in which members are assigned to boar ds, and that the resource dependent theory provides for the phenomenon of women component part on more human and socially oriented boards, with men providing more representation on financial and budgetary committees. They suggest that there is some relationship between committee assignment, gender, and the resource dependence role of directors (193). Using the theory put forth by Nussbaum, the capabilities based approach, the nature of female representation should not be considered by the nature of gender but