Laboratory Evidence on the Effects of Sponsorship on the Competitive Preferences of Men and Women

Nancy R.  Baldiga; Katherine Baldiga Coffman

Article | Management Science | February 2018

Laboratory Evidence on the Effects of Sponsorship on the Competitive Preferences of Men and Women

by Nancy R. Baldiga and Katherine Baldiga Coffman

Abstract

Sponsorship programs have been proposed as one way to promote female advancement in competitive career fields. A sponsor is someone who advocates for a protégé, and in doing so, takes a stake in her success. We use a laboratory experiment to explore two channels through which sponsorship has been posited to increase advancement in a competitive workplace. In our setting, being sponsored provides a vote of confidence and/or creates a link between the protégé’s and sponsor’s payoffs. We find that both features of sponsorship significantly increase willingness to compete among men on average, while neither of these channels significantly increases willingness to compete among women on average. As a result, sponsorship does not close the gender gap in competitiveness or earnings. We discuss how these insights from the laboratory could help to inform the design of sponsorship programs in the field.

Keywords: economics; behavior and behavioral decision making; laboratory experiment; Competition; Organizations; Gender; Behavior;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Baldiga, Nancy R., and Katherine Baldiga Coffman. "Laboratory Evidence on the Effects of Sponsorship on the Competitive Preferences of Men and Women." Management Science 64, no. 2 (February 2018): 888–901.

When Hewlett-Packard Enterprise notified the Rhode Island's Governor's Office that it wouldn't be able to deliver a "fully-functioning" technology upgrade for the Department of Motor Vehicles, both parties had reached a breaking point. While HPE argued that it would need more money to complete the system, the Governor's cabinet was convinced that HPE was violating its contractual obligations. The case covers Rhode Island's perspective of the strategic maneuvering each side made in preparation for anticipated adjudication.

We use an experiment to show that employers prefer to hire male over female workers for a male-typed task even when they have identical resumes. Using a novel control condition, we document that this discrimination is not specific to gender and is instead driven by beliefs. Employers are simply less willing to hire a worker from a group that performs worse on average, even when this group is instead defined by birth month, a non-stereotypical characteristic. A reluctance to discriminate emerges if workers share the gender or birth month of the worker from the worse-performing group, but even then, a small “excuse" counters this reluctance. Thus, our evidence points to an important role for beliefs in explaining gender discrimination.

Faculty & Research

Laboratory Evidence on the Effects of Sponsorship on the Competitive Preferences of Men and Women

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author