Seen and not heard
The Intersection of Racial and Partisan Discrimination: Evidence from a Correspondence Study of Four-Year Colleges
James Druckman & Richard Shafranek
Journal of Politics, forthcoming
Abstract:
Social decisions are often imbued with biases that can lead to discrimination against certain groups of people. Racial minorities frequently find themselves on the receiving end of such discrimination. Recent work also reveals partisan bias such that members of one political party unfairly favor their co-partisans or discriminate against members of the other party. In this paper, we use an e-mail correspondence study to explore the impact of racial and partisan discrimination in higher education. We find no direct evidence of a racial or political bias; however, we do find that African Americans who reference politics in any way receive substantially fewer responses. This coheres with the theory of racial threat: members of a majority group are averse to minorities who might threaten their political, economic, or social status.
The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science
Bas Hofstra et al.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, forthcoming
Abstract:
Prior work finds a diversity paradox: Diversity breeds innovation, yet underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-complete population of ∼1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. We use text analysis and machine learning to answer a series of questions: How do we detect scientific innovations? Are underrepresented groups more likely to generate scientific innovations? And are the innovations of underrepresented groups adopted and rewarded? Our analyses show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are devalued and discounted: For example, novel contributions by gender and racial minorities are taken up by other scholars at lower rates than novel contributions by gender and racial majorities, and equally impactful contributions of gender and racial minorities are less likely to result in successful scientific careers than for majority groups. These results suggest there may be unwarranted reproduction of stratification in academic careers that discounts diversity’s role in innovation and partly explains the underrepresentation of some groups in academia.
The Isolated Choice Effect and Its Implications for Gender Diversity in Organizations
Edward Chang et al.
Management Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
We highlight a feature of personnel selection decisions that can influence the gender diversity of groups and teams. Specifically, we show that people are less likely to choose candidates whose gender would increase group diversity when making personnel selections in isolation (i.e., when they are responsible for selecting a single group member) than when making collections of choices (i.e., when they are responsible for selecting multiple group members). We call this the isolated choice effect. Across six preregistered experiments (n = 3,509), we demonstrate that the isolated choice effect has important consequences for group diversity. When making sets of hiring and selection decisions (as opposed to making a single hire), people construct more gender-diverse groups. Mediation and moderation studies suggest that people do not attend as much to diversity when making isolated selection choices, which drives this effect.
Managing Racial Diversity: The Context of State Legal and Political Cultures
Sheryl Skaggs, Julie Kmec & Kwang Bin Bae
Social Science Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
We draw on institutional theory to examine the connection between state-level regulation of equal employment and political cultures and race/ethnic minority presence in managerial positions in private U.S. workplaces. Analyses examining managerial diversity at upper- and lower-levels show that expanded state EEO posting requirements are associated with a greater presence of nonwhite managers at both levels, while weak state EEO compliance penalties are related to fewer nonwhite lower-level managers. State-level EEO recordkeeping requirements that exceed federal law are unassociated with nonwhite managerial presence at either lower- or upper-levels. Early adoption of fair employment practices agencies (FEPA) is positively associated with only lower-level managerial diversity, whereas progressive state government ideology is negatively related to top managerial diversity. Our findings highlight the complexity of state government regulation, oversight, and culture in shaping managerial racial/ethnic diversity. We discuss the implications of our results for future research and policy aimed at diversifying private workplaces.
Race and Employment Outcomes: Evidence from NBA Coaches
Nicholas Hill & Marc Remer
Economic Inquiry, forthcoming
Abstract:
We study the impact of management diversity on employment outcomes using data on NBA head coaches that includes information on the race of each coach and his supervisor. We find that a supervisor is more likely to hire a coach of his own race. We also find that black coaches are less likely to be rehired to a second job within three years than their white counterparts, and that a head coach's race affects the quality of the opportunities he is offered. These findings are stronger for first‐time coaches than experienced coaches, suggesting that observable information on performance mitigates bias.
An Institutional Approach to Gender Diversity and Firm Performance
Letian Zhang
Organization Science, March-April 2020, Pages 439–457
Abstract:
This study examines data from 35 countries and 24 industries to understand the relationship between gender diversity and firm performance. Previous studies report conflicting evidence: some find that gender-diverse firms experience more positive performance, and others find the opposite. However, most research to date has focused on a single country or industry and has not accounted for possible variation across social contexts. This paper advances an institutional framework and predicts that gender diversity’s relationship with performance depends on both its normative and regulatory acceptance in the broader institutional environment. Using a unique longitudinal sample of 1,069 leading public firms around the world, I find that the relationship between gender diversity and firm performance varies significantly across countries and industries owing to differences in institutional context. The more that gender diversity has been normatively accepted in a country or industry, the more that gender-diverse firms experience positive market valuation and increased revenue. These findings underscore the importance of the broader social context when considering the relationship between gender diversity and firm performance.
Politics and Gender in the Executive Suite
Alma Cohen, Moshe Hazan & David Weiss
Harvard Working Paper, March 2020
Abstract:
We investigate the relationship of CEOs' political preferences (as reflected in their political contributions) with the prevalence and compensation of women in leadership positions at U.S. public companies. We find that CEOs who favor the Democratic Party (“Democratic CEOs”) are associated with the presence of more women in the team of non-CEO top executives (“the executive suite''). To explore causality, we use an event study approach and show that replacing a Republican CEO with a Democratic CEO is accompanied by an increased female representation in the executive suite. To further explore causality, we examine whether CEO political preferences are associated with gender diversity in the boardroom and find no such association. This lack of association is consistent with CEOs’ preferences having less influence over gender diversity in the boardroom than the executive suite because CEOs have less power over the appointment of directors who are supposed to supervise the CEO than over that of executives reporting to the CEO. Finally, examining the gender gaps in the level and performance-sensitivity of executive pay documented in the literature, we find that they are driven by companies headed by Republican CEOs and disappear or at least diminish under Democratic CEOs.
Do Workers Discriminate against Their Out-Group Employers? Evidence from the Gig Economy
Sher Afghan Asad, Ritwik Banerjee & Joydeep Bhattacharya
Iowa State University Working Paper, February 2020
Abstract:
We study possible worker-to-employer discrimination manifested via social preferences in an online labor market. Specifically, we ask, do workers exhibit positive social preferences for an out-race employer relative to an otherwise-identical, own-race one? We run a well-powered, model-based experiment wherein we recruit 6,000 workers from Amazon’s M-Turk platform for a real-effort task and randomly (and unobtrusively) reveal to them the racial identity of their non-fictitious employer. Strikingly, we find strong evidence of race-based altruism – white workers, even when they do not benefit personally, work relatively harder to generate more income for black employers. Self-declared white Republicans and Independents exhibit significantly more altruism relative to Democrats. Notably, the altruism does not seem to be driven by race-specific beliefs about the income status of the employers. Our results suggest the possibility that pro-social behavior of whites toward blacks, atypical in traditional labor markets, may emerge in the gig economy where associative (dis)taste is naturally muted due to limited social contact.
No Spending Without Representation: School Boards and the Racial Gap in Education Finance
Brett Fischer
University of Virginia Working Paper, March 2020
Abstract:
I evaluate whether minority representation on school boards translates into greater investment in minority students. Focusing on California school boards, I obtain causal effects by instrumenting for minority (specifically, Hispanic) school board representation using the random order in which candidates appear on election ballots. Given the dearth of school-level expenditure data, I introduce detailed records from California’s School Facility Program (SFP), a capital investment program for which I observe how school boards allocate the marginal dollar. I show that an additional Hispanic school board member nearly doubles SFP-funded capital spending. Moreover, I find that school boards with more Hispanic members devote the marginal dollar to Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students. Finally, I report improvements of up to 0.14 standard deviations on student math exam scores, attributable to improved school facilities. These results provide the first causal evidence that school board politics — and, specifically, school board ethnic composition — shapes education finance policy at the local level. My findings suggest that improving minority representation on school boards could help combat racial gaps in education finance and achievement.
The impact of penalties for wrong answers on the gender gap in test scores
Katherine Coffman & David Klinowski
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, forthcoming
Abstract:
Multiple-choice examinations play a critical role in university admissions across the world. A key question is whether imposing penalties for wrong answers on these examinations deters guessing from women more than men, disadvantaging female test-takers. We consider data from a large-scale, high-stakes policy change that removed penalties for wrong answers on the national college entry examination in Chile. The policy change reduced a large gender gap in questions skipped. It also narrowed gender gaps in performance, primarily among high-performing test-takers, and in the fields of math, social science, and chemistry.
Gender and Status in American Political Science: Who Determines Whether a Scholar Is Noteworthy?
Karen Alter et al.
Perspectives on Politics, forthcoming
Abstract:
We investigate gender disparities in status construction in American political science, focusing on three questions: 1) Do institutions within the discipline of political science — including departments, APSA, editorial boards, and academic honor societies – reflect or remedy gender disparities that exist in many forms of recognition, including appointments to top leadership and citations? 2) Are institutions with centralized and accountable appointment mechanisms less gender skewed compared to networked and decentralized selection processes where implicit bias may go unchecked? 3) Does leaning in help? Does the effort of women to publish and to claim a seat at leadership tables increase the likelihood that higher-level status positions will follow? We find that the distribution of highest-status positions is still gender skewed, that women are over-represented in positions that involve more service than prestige, that “leaning in” by serving as section chair, on editorial boards, or on academic councils is not necessarily a gateway to higher-status appointments, and that accountability promotes greater gender parity. The study raises questions about the goal of gender parity when it comes to lower-status service, and about the types of contributions our discipline rewards.
The gender gap in commenting: Women are less likely than men to comment on (men’s) published research
Cary Wu et al.
PLoS ONE, April 2020
Abstract:
Subtle gender dynamics in the publishing process involving collaboration, peer-review, readership, citation, and media coverage disadvantage women in academia. In this study we consider whether commenting on published work is also gendered. Using all the comments published over a 16-year period in PNAS (N = 869) and Science (N = 481), we find that there is a gender gap in the authorship of comment letters: women are less likely than men to comment on published academic research. This disparity is greater than gender differences in the publication of research articles. There is also a gendered pattern in commenting: women comment writers are relatively less likely to engage with men’s research. If left unaddressed, these patterns in academic commenting could impede scholarly exchange between men and women and further marginalize women within the scientific community.
Gender and the Consulting Academic Economist
Alison Del Rossi & Joni Hersch
Economic Inquiry, forthcoming
Abstract:
We surveyed academic economists on their experiences and perceptions of legal consulting. Nearly two-thirds have consulting experience and 40 percent have consulted within the last five years. Base hourly rates average $244, with a median of $200. Women are less likely than men to have served as consultants and charge lower rates than comparable men, but there are few differences by gender in willingness to consult. Women report substantially more negative bias and are less likely to consult in complex cases or to have a high profile role in litigation.
Can Mentoring Help Female Assistant Professors in Economics? An Evaluation by Randomized Trial
Donna Ginther et al.
NBER Working Paper, March 2020
Abstract:
Women continue to be underrepresented in academic ranks in the economics profession. The Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession of the American Economics Association established the CeMENT mentoring workshop to support women in research careers. The program was designed as a randomized controlled trial. This study evaluates differences between the treatment and control groups in career outcomes. Results indicate that relative to women in the control group, treated women are more likely to stay in academia and more likely to have received tenure in an institution ranked in the top 30 or 50 in economics in the world.
The Managerial Effects of Algorithmic Fairness Activism
Bo Cowgill, Fabrizio Dell'Acqua & Sandra Matz
American Economic Review, forthcoming
Abstract:
How do ethical arguments affect AI adoption in business? We randomly expose business decision-makers to arguments used in AI fairness activism. Arguments emphasizing the inescapability of algorithmic bias lead managers to abandon AI for manual review by humans and report greater expectations about lawsuits and negative PR. These effects persist even when AI lowers gender and racial disparities, and when engineering investments to address AI fairness are feasible. Emphasis on status quo comparisons yields opposite effects. We also measure the effects of "scientific veneer" in AI ethics arguments. Scientific veneer changes managerial behavior, but does not asymmetrically benefit favorable (vs critical) AI activism.