Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159708
|
| Title: | 從外群至內群體：女性 CEO與人工智慧專利
From Out-Group to In-Group: Female CEOs and Artificial Intelligence Patents |
| Authors: | 戴寧
Tai, Ning |
| Contributors: | 楊宗翰
Yang, Tsung-Han
戴寧
Tai, Ning |
| Keywords: | 女性 CEO
人工智慧
創新
職涯時間特徵
高層理論
社會認同與再分類機制
Female CEO
Artificial Intelligence
Innovation
CEO temporal characteristics
Upper Echelons Theory
Social identity and recategorization mechanisms |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-10-02 11:16:08 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究探討女性執行長（Female CEOs）如何影響企業的人工智慧（AI）創新，並以 AI 相關專利產出作為衡量指標。基於高階主管理論（Upper Echelons Theory, UET）與社會認同及再分類機制（Social Identity and Recategorization Mechanisms），分析女性領導如何塑造企業的策略決策與創新結果。本文採用 2014 至 2024 年間美國 239 家高科技產業公司（共 1,734 筆公司年度觀測值）的面板數據（Panel Data），整合公司財務資訊、CEO 特徵及 WIPO 專利資料，並以零膨脹負二項迴歸（ZINB）模型進行分析。實證分析結果表明，女性 CEO 與企業的 AI 專利產出呈現顯著負向關聯，顯示其在高度不確定的技術創新情境下更可能採取保守的風險態度。此外，CEO 的職涯時間特徵在模型中展現出顯著的調節效果：較長的職業視野會加劇此負向關係，而較長的組織任期則能透過累積信任與正當性減緩不利影響。本研究結果補充了女性領導力在高風險技術創新領域的實證證據。
This research investigates the impact of female Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) on corporate innovation outcomes in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), measured through AI-related patent output. Drawing on Upper Echelons Theory (UET) and Social Identity and Recategorization Mechanisms, it analyzes how female leadership shapes corporate strategic decisions and innovation outcomes. The study employs panel data of 239 U.S. high-technology firms from 2014 to 2024 (1,734 firm-year observations), integrating firm-level financial information, CEO characteristics, and patent data from WIPO, and applies a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) regression model. The findings reveal a significant negative association between female CEOs and AI patent output, reflecting a greater tendency toward risk aversion in highly uncertain technological innovation. Moreover, CEOs’ career-related temporal characteristics moderate this relationship: a longer career horizon amplifies the negative association, while longer organizational tenure mitigates it by fostering accumulated trust and legitimacy. Overall, the findings add empirical evidence on female leadership in the domain of high-risk technological innovation. |
| Reference: | Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.
Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence: The ambiguous labor market impact of automating prediction. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 31–50.
Allam, S. (2016). The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), 4(4), 810–814.
Barker III, V. L., & Mueller, G. C. (2002). CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management Science, 48(6), 782–801.
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and interaction: An expectation states approach. Elsevier.
Bhagat, S., Bolton, B., & Subramanian, A. (2010). CEO education, CEO turnover, and firm performance. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Bianchini, S., Müller, M., & Pelletier, P. (2020). Deep learning in science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.01575.
Brickley, J. A., Linck, J. S., & Coles, J. L. (1999). What happens to CEOs after they retire? New evidence on career concerns, horizon problems, and CEO incentives. Journal of Financial Economics, 52(3), 341–377.
Brown, J. R., & Petersen, B. C. (2011). Cash holdings and R&D smoothing. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(3), 694–709.
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., … Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, & H. Lin (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901). Curran Associates, Inc.
Capasso, M., Cefis, E., & Frenken, K. (2015). The medium-term effect of R&D on firm growth. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 39–62.
Chauvin, K. W., & Hirschey, M. (1993). Advertising, R&D expenditures and the market value of the firm. Financial Management, 22(4), 128–140.
Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Xie, Q., & Li, J. (2014). CEOs’ transformational leadership and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(S1), 2–17.
Cho, S. Y., & Kim, S. K. (2017). Horizon problem and firm innovation: The influence of CEO career horizon, exploitation and exploration on breakthrough innovations. Research Policy, 46(10), 1801–1809.
Daldrop, C., Buengeler, C., & Homan, A. C. (2023). An intersectional lens on young leaders: Bias toward young women and young men in leadership positions. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1204547.
Daldrop, C., Buengeler, C., & Homan, A. C. (2025). Too young to lead? Role incongruity explains age bias against young leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 36(4), 101878.
Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675–688.
Damioli, G., Van Roy, V., Vértesy, D., & Vivarelli, M. (2024). Drivers of employment dynamics of AI innovators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123249.
Desyllas, P., & Hughes, A. (2009). The revealed preferences of high technology acquirers: An analysis of the innovation characteristics of their targets. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(6), 1081–1110.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. In C. R. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1, pp. 1061–1073). Elsevier.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484–503.
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press.
Geelen, T., Hajda, J., & Morellec, E. (2022). Can corporate debt foster innovation and growth? The Review of Financial Studies, 35(9), 4152–4200.
Griliches, Z. (1986). Productivity, R&D, and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. American Economic Review, 76(1), 141–154.
Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1993). Top-management-team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 844–863.
Hall, B. H., & Vopel, K. (1996). Innovation, market share, and market value. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4(1), 1–31.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.
Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1993). Top executive commitment to the status quo: Some tests of its determinants. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6), 401–418.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
Hausman, J., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52(4), 909–938.
Hidayat, R., & Leon, F. (2020). Green CSR moderated by public visibility and innovation performance at Indonesia companies. Journal Management, 24(1), 1–20.
Hirschey, M., Skiba, H., & Wintoki, M. B. (2012). The size, concentration and evolution of corporate R&D spending in U.S. firms from 1976 to 2010. Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(5), 1023–1039.
Javaid, H. M., Ain, Q. U., & Renzi, A. (2023). She-E-Os and innovation: Do female CEOs influence firm innovation? European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(4), 982–1004.
Joo, Y., Georgakakis, D., & Sidhu, J. S. (2025). CEO career horizon and innovation: A U-shaped tale of short-term profits and long-term legacy. Research Policy, 54(5), 105216.
Kang, J. (2016). Labor market evaluation versus legacy conservation: What factors determine retiring CEOs’ decisions about long-term investment? Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 389–405.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 81–104.
Kim, J., Jun, S., Jang, D., & Park, S. (2018). Sustainable technology analysis of artificial intelligence using Bayesian and social network models. Sustainability, 10(1), 115.
Kogan, L., Papanikolaou, D., Seru, A., & Stoffman, N. (2017). Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(2), 665–712.
Kopka, A., & Fornahl, D. (2024). Artificial intelligence and firm growth—Catch-up processes of SMEs through integrating AI into their knowledge bases. Small Business Economics, 62(1), 63–85.
Kraft, P. S. (2022). The double‐edged sword of CEO narcissism: A meta‐analysis of innovation and firm performance implications. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(6), 749-772.
Krause, R., & Semadeni, M. (2014). Last dance or second chance? Firm performance, CEO career horizon, and the separation of board leadership roles. Strategic Management Journal, 35(6), 808–825.
Lee, J. M., Park, J. C., & Folta, T. B. (2018). CEO career horizon, corporate governance, and real options: The role of economic short-termism. Strategic Management Journal, 39(10), 2703–2725.
Lianidou, T., & Zheng, W. (2023). Leader diffuse status and leadership outcomes: Towards an integrative framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(3), 443–466.
Lin, C., Lin, P., Song, F. M., & Li, C. (2011). Managerial incentives, CEO characteristics and corporate innovation in China’s private sector. Journal of Comparative Economics, 39(2), 176–190.
Mansfield, E. (1962). Entry, Gibrat’s law, innovation, and the growth of firms. American Economic Review, 55(5), 1023–1051.
Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing. American Economic Review, 70(5), 863–873.
Mansfield, E. (1986). Patents and innovation: An empirical study. Management Science, 32(2), 173–181.
Palvia, A., Vähämaa, E., & Vähämaa, S. (2015). Are female CEOs and chairwomen more conservative and risk averse? Evidence from the banking industry during the financial crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(3), 577–594.
Park, H., Park, J.-H., Lee, S., & Hahn, H. (2021). A study on the impact of R&D intensity on business performance: Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(2), 135.
Petsko, C. D., Rosette, A. S., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2022). Through the looking glass: A lens-based account of intersectional stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(4), 763–787.
Ridgeway, C. L., Berger, J., & Smith, L. (1985). Nonverbal cues and status: An expectation states approach. American Journal of Sociology, 90(5), 955–978.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102.
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over‐represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 81–90.
Strike, V. M., Berrone, P., Sapp, S. G., & Congiu, L. (2015). A socioemotional wealth approach to CEO career horizons in family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 555–583.
Strohmeyer, R., Tonoyan, V., & Jennings, J. E. (2017). Jacks-(and Jills)-of-all-trades: On whether, how and why gender influences firm innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(5), 498–518.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.
Visser, M., & Faems, D. (2015). Exploration and exploitation within firms: The impact of CEOs’ cognitive style on incremental and radical innovation performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(3), 359–372.
Wang, G., Holmes, R. M., Jr., Oh, I.-S., & Zhu, W. (2016). Do CEOs matter to firm strategic actions and firm performance? A meta-analytic investigation based on upper echelons theory. Personnel Psychology, 69(4), 775–862.
Webb, M., Short, N., Bloom, N., & Lerner, J. (2018). Some facts of high-tech patenting. (NBER Working Paper No. 24793. )National Bureau of Economic Research.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2019). WIPO technology trends 2019: Artificial intelligence.World Intellectual Property Organization. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
112364101 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112364101 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 410101.pdf | 1974Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
