IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v34y2023i2p657-679.html

Just Diverse Among Themselves: How Does Negative Performance Feedback Affect Boards’ Expertise vs. Ascriptive Diversity?

Author

Listed:
  • HeeJung Jung

    (Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom)

  • Yonghoon G. Lee

    (Department of Management, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong)

  • Sun Hyun Park

    (Graduate School of Business, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, South Korea)

Abstract

We investigate how negative performance feedback affects board diversity, which is instrumental in shaping a firm’s strategic change. When a firm underperforms compared with its aspiration, its board is motivated to promptly address the underperformance. The board needs to not only help search for strategic alternatives but also quickly build consensus around its strategic reorientation. These two motivations lead the board to value two dimensions of diversity among its members differently. On the one hand, to understand the problem of underperformance and find a solution, the board is motivated to seek new expertise, avoiding redundancy in the pool of expertise already represented in the boardroom. This results in a higher level of diversity in director expertise. On the other hand, the urgent need to build consensus prompts the board to value trust and solidarity and to avoid potential conflict among directors. Because people perceive others with similar ascriptive backgrounds as trustworthy, changes in the board of an underperforming firm are likely to yield a lower level of diversity in its members’ ascriptive backgrounds. These changes in board are affected by the committee chairs of the board whose power and influence are significant in the boardroom. Analyses of the boards of 733 U.S. listed manufacturing firms show that when a firm underperforms compared with its aspirations, it increases the board expertise diversity, but decreases the board ascriptive diversity. When chairs on the board are gender or racial minorities, the negative association between underperformance and the board ascriptive diversity is weakened.

Suggested Citation

  • HeeJung Jung & Yonghoon G. Lee & Sun Hyun Park, 2023. "Just Diverse Among Themselves: How Does Negative Performance Feedback Affect Boards’ Expertise vs. Ascriptive Diversity?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 657-679, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:2:p:657-679
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2022.1595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1595
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2022.1595?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lemaro Thompson, 2026. "Taste-Based Statistical Discrimination: A New Framework for Understanding Organizational Inequality in a Polarized Era," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 204(3), pages 663-682, March.
    2. Balachandran, Chanchal & Wennberg, Karl, 2025. "Director turnover in new venture boards: From homophilous to resource-contingent processes," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 40(5).
    3. Azusa Kadomura & Akiyuki Sekiguchi & Takumi Kato, 2025. "Perceived diversity and skill diversity to utilise demographic diversity: evidence from the factors of employee attitudes in a large Japanese company," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Kim, Minjae & Noh, Ki Bum, 2025. "Board diversity and the timing of drug recalls: Implications for public health and shareholder value," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:2:p:657-679. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.