Sector News

Companies with more women on the board are less likely to make acquisitions

June 1, 2016
Diversity & Inclusion

Groups of men, left alone without the civilizing influence of women, will descend into barbarism, thumping chests, picking fights, and brawling unchecked. That’s the gross stereotype, anyway.

When it comes to the behavior of corporate boards, at least, there may be some truth to it.

Boards with women are less likely to try to buy other companies, and when they do, the deals are smaller, according to a study published earlier this year in the Strategic Management Journal.

That’s true of boards with as few as one woman, but the addition of more female directors further lessens a company’s aggressive tendencies, according to co-author Craig Crossland, a business professor at the University of Notre Dame.

Crossland and his colleagues looked at 2,998 deals from 1,592 US companies between 1998 and 2010. On boards where the number of women increased from low to high (or one standard deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above), there was an 18% decrease in acquisitiveness, a 12% decrease in deal size, and an average reduction of $97.2 million in annual M&A spending.

The authors hypothesize that the presence of women on boards increases the diversity of viewpoints and results in more complete discussions about the merits of deals.

“Boards with one or more female directors will interact differently from comparable all-male boards,” they write. On boards with women “decision-making processes are likely to be more contentious, thorough, and comprehensive, and less likely to be characterized by acquiescence, rapid consensus, or groupthink.”

The study is yet more evidence that when it comes to business, women make it better. Other studies show that, on average, women are more risk averse and make safer investments then men, yet their performance as investors is about the same.

When it comes to M&A, Crossland and his colleagues don’t argue that it’s women, per se, that make boards less aggressive, but rather the diversity they contribute that has an effect. In an email, Crossland speculated that adding members of other groups not traditionally represented on corporate boards, whether in the minority on race, sexual orientation, or age, might have the same effect.

And while the authors didn’t find that that women on boards helped or hindered the company’s overall performance, “there’s a reasonable amount of work suggesting that acquisitions in general are more likely to destroy than create value for firms, so we feel pretty confident in saying that greater female representation certainly isn’t a bad thing,” Crossland said.

By Oliver Staley

Source: Quartz

comments closed

Related News

February 25, 2024

From Gen Z to X and Boomers, too: how to effectively lead a multi-generational workforce

Diversity & Inclusion

Have you felt a bit dated lately after glancing around your meetings or Zoom calls? It’s not the video filters or unfamiliar slang; it’s your colleagues. Gen Z employees are poised to surpass Boomers in the workplace this year.

February 17, 2024

Busting myths about women in the workplace

Diversity & Inclusion

On this episode of The McKinsey Podcast, McKinsey senior partners Alexis Krivkovich and Lareina Yee talk with global editorial director Lucia Rahilly about the 2023 Women in the Workplace report—and specifically, the newest research on where progress is happening, where it’s not, and what leaders need to do differently to accelerate the pace of change.

February 10, 2024

The new Executive Presence: has a difficult decade changed the definition?

Diversity & Inclusion

Everyone agrees that leaders can’t reach the top without executive presence — but pinning down a definition is much more daunting. In fact, the fuzzy nature of the phrase is exactly why it’s often used as a fig leaf to keep women and other marginalized people out of plum roles.

How can we help you?

We're easy to reach