Toward Value Co-Creation: Increasing Women’s Presence in Management Positions through Competition against a Set Target
Abstract
:1. Introduction
It is often said that we should welcome women’s presence in the workplace because it allows us to capitalize on the talents of our entire population, and this is certainly true. But it is also good business. A number of studies on how groups perform indicate that workforces that vary on dimensions such as gender, race, and ethnicity produce better decision-making processes and better outcomes. Evidence also suggests that women’s work has positive spillovers to their family lives and to the success of their children, which in turn benefits all of society.Janet L. Yellen, 5 May 2017
So We All Can Succeed: 125 Years of Women’s Participation in the Economy At “125 Years of Women at Brown Conference”, sponsored by Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
2. Experimental Design and Procedures
3. Results
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Aquilani, B.; Silvestri, C.; Ruggieri, A. Sustainability, TQM and value co-creation processes: The role of critical success factors. Sustainability 2016, 8, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant Thornton. Women in Business: New Perspectives on Risk and Reward; Grant Thornton International Ltd.: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, J.; Lee, J. Persistence of the gender gap and low employment of female workers in a stratified labor market: Evidence from South Korea. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12425–12451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blau, F.D.; Currie, J.M.; Croson, R.T.A.; Ginther, D.K. Can mentoring help female assistant professors? Interim results from a randomized trial. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 348–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cason, T.N.; Masters, W.A.; Sheremeta, R.M. Entry into winner-take-all and proportional-prize contests: An experimental study. J. Public Econ. 2010, 94, 604–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croson, R.; Gneezy, U. Gender differences in preferences. J. Econ. Lit. 2009, 47, 448–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Datta Gupta, N.; Poulsen, A.; Villeval, M.C. Gender matching and competitiveness: Experimental evidence. Econ. Inq. 2013, 51, 816–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dohmen, T.; Falk, A. Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences, and gender. Am. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101, 556–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gneezy, U.; Leonard, K.L.; List, J.A. Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 2009, 77, 1637–1644. [Google Scholar]
- Gneezy, U.; Niederle, M.; Rustichini, A. Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Q. J. Econ. 2003, 118, 1049–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gneezy, U.; Rustichini, A. Gender and competition at a young age. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004, 94, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niederle, M.; Vesterlund, L. Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Q. J. Econ. 2007, 122, 1067–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niederle, M.; Vesterlund, L. Gender and competition. Ann. Rev. Econ. 2011, 3, 601–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weichselbaumer, D.; Winter-Ebmer, R.; Zweimüller, M. Market orientation and gender wage gaps: An international study. Kyklos 2007, 61, 615–635. [Google Scholar]
- Booth, A.L.; Nolen, P. Gender Differences in risk Behavior: Does Nurture Matter? Econ. J. 2012, 122, F56–F78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nollenberger, N.; Rodríguez-Planas, N.; Sevilla, A. The math gender gap: The role of culture. Am. Econ. Rev. 2016, 106, 257–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charness, G.; Rustichini, A. Gender differences in cooperation with group membership. Games Econ. Behav. 2011, 72, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamas, L.; Preston, A. The importance of being confident; Gender, career choice, and willingness to compete. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2012, 83, 82–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutter, M.; Glätzle-Rützler, D.; Balafoutas, L.; Czermak, S. Cancelling out early age gender differences in competition: An analysis of policy interventions. Exp. Econ. 2016, 19, 412–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comeig, I.; Grau-Grau, A.; Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, A.; Ramírez, F. Gender, self-confidence, sports, and preferences for competition. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1418–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apicella, C.L.; Demiral, E.E.; Mollerstrom, J. No gender difference in willingness to compete when competing against self. Am. Econ. Rev. 2017, 107, 136–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, J.; Frank, R.; Huet-Vaughn, E. Gender Differences in Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Competitive Behavior; IZA Discussion Paper Series, 10626; IZA Institute of Labor Economics: Bonn, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Klinowski, D. Gender and the Willingness to Compete against Own Past Performance; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bönte, W.; Procher, V.; Urbig, D. Gender differences in selection into self-competition. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freixas, X.; Guesnerie, R.; Tirole, J. Planning under incomplete information and the ratchet effect. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1985, 52, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charness, G.; Kuhn, P.; Villeval, M.C. Competition and the ratchet effect. J. Labor Econ. 2011, 29, 513–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buser, T.; Niederle, M.; Oosterbeek, H. Gender, competitiveness, and career choices. Q. J. Econ. 2014, 129, 1409–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reuben, E.; Sapienza, P.; Zingales, L. Taste for Competition and the Gender Gap among Young Business Professionals; National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 21695; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Buser, T.; Peter, N.; Wolter, S. Gender, competitiveness, and study choices in high school: Evidence from Switzerland. Am. Econ. Rev. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griesinger, D.W.; Livingston, J.W. Toward a model of interpersonal motivation in experimental games. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 1973, 18, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McClintock, C.G.; Liebrand, W.B. Role of interdependence structure, individual value orientation, and another’s strategy in social decision making: A transformational analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 55, 396–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liebrand, W.B. The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N-person multi-stage mixed-motive game. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 14, 239–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brosig, J. Identifying cooperative behavior: Some experimental results in a prisoner’s dilemma game. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2002, 47, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comeig, I.; Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, A.; Ramírez, F. Do Women Self-Select as Good Borrowers? WP-UJI 2013/14; University Jaume I: Castellón de la Plana, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Holt, C.A.; Laury, S. Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92, 1644–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischbacher, U. z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp. Econ. 2007, 10, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boulu-Reshef, B.; Comeig, I.; Donze, R.; Weiss, G.D. Risk aversion in prediction markets: A framed-field experiment. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5071–5075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comeig, I.; Lurbe, M. Gender behavioral issues and entrepreneurship. In Inside the Mind of the Entrepreneur; Contributions to Management Science; Tur Porcar, A., Ribeiro Soriano, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 149–159. [Google Scholar]
- Langowitz, N.; Minniti, M. The entrepreneurial propensity of women. Entrepreneurship 2007, 31, 341–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koellinger, P.; Minniti, M.; Schades, C. Perceptions and heuristics in entrepreneurial decisions—The example of overconfidence. Excess entry and entrepreneurial decisions: The role of overconfidence. In The Dynamics of Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Data; Minniti, M., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 11–30. [Google Scholar]
- Koellinger, P.; Minniti, M.; Schades, C. Gender differences in entrepreneurial propensity. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2013, 75, 213–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
(a) Description of the Two Experimental Treatments | |||||||
Treatment 1 | Treatment 2 | ||||||
Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Round 4 | Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Round 4 |
Piece-rate pay | Competition against others | Choice of payment type 1 or 2 | Competition against a set target | Piece-rate pay | Competition against a set target | Choice of payment type 1 or 2 | Competition against others |
(b) Expected Payoff Depending on Competition Type and Number of Correct Sums | |||||||
Number of Correct Sums | Piece-Rate Pay (1) | Competition against Others (2) | Competition against a Set Target (3) | ||||
7 | 1.75 | Ps × 7 | 0 | ||||
8 | 2 | Ps × 8 | 0 | ||||
9 | 2.25 | Ps × 9 | 0 | ||||
10 | 2.5 | Ps × 10 | 5 | ||||
11 | 2.75 | Ps × 11 | 8.25 | ||||
12 | 3 | Ps × 12 | 12 |
Panel A. Differences by Treatment | ||||||
Men | Women | Men + Women | ||||
T1 | T2 | T1 | T2 | T1 | T2 | |
H0: T1 = T2 | ||||||
Correct sums Round 1 | 5.54 | 5.83 | 5.23 | 6.75 | 5.39 | 6.23 |
Mann-Whitney test | p = 0.566 | p = 0.013 | p = 0.025 | |||
Enter competition | 51.92% | 67.31% | 51.92% | 76.92% | 51.92% | 72.12% |
Proportion test | p = 0.110 | p = 0.008 | p = 0.003 | |||
Self-confidence | 32.69% | 34.62% | 21.15% | 19.23% | 26.92% | 26.92% |
Proportion test * | p = 0.836 | p = 0.807 | p = 0.100 | |||
Cooperative | 48.08% | 34.62% | 42.31% | 38.46% | 45.19% | 36.54% |
Proportion test * | p = 0.163 | p = 0.689 | p = 0.204 | |||
Risk averse | 77.42% | 77.42% | 72.97% | 56.41% | 75.00% | 65.71% |
Proportion test * | p = 1.000 | p = 0.132 | p = 0.233 | |||
Sports | 67.31% | 65.38% | 94.23% | 88.46% | 80.77% | 76.92% |
Proportion test * | p = 0.836 | p = 0.295 | p = 0.497 | |||
Games | 44.23% | 28.85% | 80.77% | 84.62% | 62.50% | 56.73% |
Proportion test * | p = 0.103 | p = 0.604 | p = 0.397 | |||
Panel B. Differences by Gender | ||||||
T1 | T2 | T1 + T2 | ||||
M | W | M | W | M | W | |
H0: Men = Women | ||||||
Correct sums Round 1 | 5.54 | 5.23 | 5.83 | 6.75 | 5.68 | 5.99 |
Mann-Whitney test | p = 0.498 | p = 0.145 | p = 0.539 | |||
Enter competition | 51.92% | 51.92% | 67.31% | 76.92% | 59.62% | 64.42% |
Proportion test * | p = 1.000 | p = 0.274 | p = 0.475 | |||
Self-confidence | 32.69% | 21.15% | 34.62% | 19.23% | 33.65% | 20.19% |
Proportion test * | p = 0.185 | p = 0.077 | p = 0.029 | |||
Cooperative | 48.08% | 42.31% | 34.62% | 38.46% | 41.35% | 40.38% |
Proportion test * | p = 0.554 | p = 0.684 | p = 0.888 | |||
Risk averse | 77.42% | 72.97% | 77.42% | 56.41% | 77.42% | 64.47% |
Proportion test * | p = 0.673 | p = 0.066 | p = 0.098 | |||
Sports | 67.31% | 94.23% | 65.38% | 88.46% | 66.35% | 91.35% |
Proportion test * | p = 0.000 | p = 0.005 | p = 0.000 | |||
Games | 44.23% | 80.77% | 28.85% | 84.62% | 36.54% | 82.69% |
Proportion test * | p = 0.000 | p = 0.000 | p = 0.000 |
Variables | Overall | Women | Men | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(a) | (b) | (c) | (d) | |||||
Coef. | Std. Err. | Coef. | Std. Err. | Coef. | Std. Err. | Coef. | Std. Err. | |
Constant | −2.66 | 0.78 *** | −2.54 | 1.02 ** | −2.68 | 1.13 ** | −2.54 | 1.10 ** |
Gender | 0.05 | 0.35 | −0.38 | 0.46 | ||||
Treatment | 0.83 | 0.32 ** | 1.07 | 0.40 ** | 1.03 | 0.47 ** | 0.59 | 0.45 |
Correct sums R1 | 0.22 | 0.07 *** | 0.28 | 0.09 ** | 0.19 | 0.09 ** | 0.29 | 0.11 *** |
Self-confidence | −0.29 | 0.36 | −0.31 | 0.48 | −0.35 | 0.56 | −0.02 | 0.50 |
Cooperative | 0.78 | 0.32 | −0.24 | 0.40 | 0.86 | 0.48 * | −0.66 | 0.46 |
Risk averse | −0.15 | 0.45 | ||||||
Sports | 0.98 | 0.40 ** | 0.67 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.79 | 1.17 | 0.49 ** |
Games | −0.09 | 0.36 | −0.31 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 0.59 | −0.70 | 0.48 |
N | 208 | 138 | 104 | 104 | ||||
Prob. > X2 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.002 | ||||
Pseudo R2 | 0.116 | 0.148 | 0.132 | 0.145 |
© 2017 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Comeig, I.; Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, A.; Ramírez, F. Toward Value Co-Creation: Increasing Women’s Presence in Management Positions through Competition against a Set Target. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101833
Comeig I, Jaramillo-Gutiérrez A, Ramírez F. Toward Value Co-Creation: Increasing Women’s Presence in Management Positions through Competition against a Set Target. Sustainability. 2017; 9(10):1833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101833
Chicago/Turabian StyleComeig, Irene, Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, and Federico Ramírez. 2017. "Toward Value Co-Creation: Increasing Women’s Presence in Management Positions through Competition against a Set Target" Sustainability 9, no. 10: 1833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101833