Pursuing Quality: How Search Costs and Uncertainty Magnify Gender-based Double Standards in a Multistage Evaluation Process

Administrative Science Quarterly - Tập 62 Số 4 - Trang 698-730 - 2017
Tristan L. Botelho1, Mabel Abraham2
1Yale School of Management
2Graduate School of Business, Columbia University;

Tóm tắt

Despite lab-based evidence supporting the argument that double standards—by which one group is unfairly held to stricter standards than another—explain observed gender differences in evaluations, it remains unclear whether double standards also affect evaluations in organization and market contexts, where competitive pressures create a disincentive to discriminate. Using data from a field study of investment professionals sharing recommendations on an online platform, and drawing on status theory, we identify the conditions under which double standards in multistage evaluations contribute to unequal outcomes for men and women. We find that double standards disadvantaging women are most likely when evaluators face heightened search costs related to the number of candidates being compared or higher levels of uncertainty stemming from variation in the amount of pertinent information available. We rule out that systematic gender differences in the actions or characteristics of the investment professionals being evaluated are driving these results. By more carefully isolating the role of this status-based mechanism of discrimination for perpetuating gender inequality, this study identifies not only whether but also the conditions under which gender-based double standards lead to a female disadvantage, even when relevant and objective information about performance is readily available.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Alden W. 2013 “Returns at hedge funds run by women beat the industry, report says.” DealBook. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/returns-at-hedge-funds-run-by-women-beat-the-industry-report-says/.

10.1016/S1573-4463(99)30039-0

Arrow K. 1971 Some Models of Racial Discrimination in the Labor Market. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation: 1–54.

10.1287/mnsc.2013.1755

10.1287/mnsc.2013.1776

10.1162/003355301556400

Becker G. S. 1957 The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10.1177/000312240507000407

10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00406.x

Berger J. 1977 Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach. New York: Elsevier Scientific.

10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403

10.1257/0002828042002561

10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01875.x

Botelho T. L. 2016 “Here’s an opportunity: Knowledge sharing among competitors as a response to uncertainty.” Working paper, MIT Sloan.

Bromiley P., 1992, Risk-taking Behavior: 87–132

10.1073/pnas.1321202111

10.1086/588738

10.1086/593073

10.1016/S0882-6145(06)23004-2

Correll S., 2003, Handbook of Social Psychology: 29–51

10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369

Ding W. W., Murray F., Stuart T. E. 2006 “Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences.” Science, 313: 665–667.

10.2307/2579918

10.1086/595941

10.1177/000312240607100103

Financial Times 2013 Global MBA Ranking. London: Financial Times. Accessed at http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2013.

Foschi M., 1989, Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations: 58–72

10.2307/2787021

10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.21

10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.10.004

Foschi M., 1988, Status Generalization: New Theory and Research: 248–260

10.1177/1046496495263002

10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.11.002

10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.02.001

10.1017/CBO9781139174176

10.1287/mksc.6.3.223

10.1353/sof.2007.0004

10.1287/mksc.19.1.4.15178

10.1016/0030-5073(80)90074-4

Hinz R. P., 1997, Positioning Pensions for the Twenty-first Century: 91–103

10.2189/asqu.51.1.97

10.1111/j.1465-7295.1998.tb01740.x

10.1287/mnsc.2014.1967

10.1177/0001839214523602

Maguire F. P. 2012 Advanced Global Name Recognition Technology. New York: IBM.

10.1126/science.159.3810.56

10.1126/science.1240466

National Council for Research on Women 2009 “Women in fund management: The report.” http://regender.org/reports-publications/women-fund-management-report.

10.2307/2946676

Niessen A., Ruenzi S. 2007 “Sex matters: Gender differences in a professional setting.” CFR Working Paper No. 06–01. http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/57738.

10.1177/000312240907400505

Phelps E. S., 1972, American Economic Review, 62, 659

10.1086/230091

10.2307/2393299

Podolny J. M. 2005 Status Signals: A Sociological Study of Market Competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.1177/089124388002001005

10.2307/2654936

10.1177/0891243204265269

10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191

Rothstein Kass Institute 2012 Women in Alternative Investments: Building Momentum in 2013 and Beyond. Roseland, NJ: Rothstein Kass Institute.

Salganik M. J., 2006, Science, New Series, 311, 854

10.1287/mnsc.1100.1270

10.2307/2666998

Sunden A. E., 1998, American Economic Review, 88, 207

10.1177/0003122410388491

U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Genealogy Data. http://www.census.gov/topics/population/genealogy/data/1990_census/1990_census_namefiles.html.

U.S. News and World Report 2013a Best Business Schools. Accessed at http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools.

U.S. News and World Report 2013b National University Rankings. Accessed at http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/data.

VanDerhei J. L., 1997, Positioning Pensions for the Twenty-first Century: 45–66

Wagner D. G., 1993, Theoretical Research Programs: Studies in the Growth of Theory: 23–63

10.2307/2657554

10.1086/210178

10.1177/000312240406900305

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Administrative Science Quarterly

Tập 62 Số 4

698-730

Thông tin tác giả