Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-sbzbt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:21:15.583Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the effectiveness of elected male and female leaders and team coordination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ernesto Reuben Open the ORCID record for Ernesto Reuben [Opens in a new window]  and
Krisztina Timko
Ernesto Reuben*
Affiliation:
New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Krisztina Timko*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
*
e-mail: ereuben@nyu.edu
krisztina.timko@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study the effect on coordination in a minimum-effort game of a leader’s gender depending on whether the leader is democratically elected or is randomly selected. Leaders use non-binding messages to try to convince followers to coordinate on the Pareto-efficient equilibrium. We find that teams with elected leaders coordinate on higher effort levels. Initially, the benefits of being elected are captured solely by male leaders. However, this gender difference disappears with repeated interaction because unsuccessful male leaders are reelected more often than unsuccessful female leaders.

Keywords

Gender differencesLeadershipDemocracy effectLeader effectivenessCoordination

JEL classification

M14: Corporate Culture • Diversity • Social Responsibility M54: Labor Management C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior J16: Economics of Gender • Non-labor Discrimination
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 123 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-018-0056-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Arbak, E., Villeval, M. C. (2013). Voluntary leadership: motivation and influence. Social Choice and Welfare, 40(3), 635–662. 10.1007/s00355-011-0626-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltrunaite, A., Bello, P., Casarico, A., Profeta, P. (2014). Gender quotas and the quality of politicians. Journal of Public Economics, 118, 62–74. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, I., van Geen, A., Bazerman, M. (2016). When performance trumps gender bias: joint vs. separate evaluation. Management Science, 62(5), 1225–1234. 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, P., Brunnermeier, M. K., Veldkamp, L., & Nohria, Nitin, Khurana, Rakesh. (2010). Economists’ perspectives on leadership Handbook of leadership theory and practice, Boston: Harvard Business School Press 239–264.Google Scholar
Brandts, J., Cooper, D. J. (2007). It’s what you say, not what you pay: an experimental study of manager-employee relationships in overcoming coordination failure. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(6), 1223–1268. 10.1162/JEEA.2007.5.6.1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., Cooper, D. J., Weber, R. A. (2015). Legitimacy, communication, and leadership in the turnaround game. Management Science, 61(11), 2627–2645. 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. (2015). The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: a critical reply to Levitt and List. In Handbook of experimental economic methodology (pp. 249–295). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., Cobo-Reyes, R., & Sanches, A. (2018). Anticipated discrimination, choices, and performance: experimental evidence. School of Business Administration Working Paper 02 February 2018. American University of Sharjah.Google Scholar
Croson, R., Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. 10.1257/jel.47.2.448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bó, P., & Galiani, S., Sened, I. (2014). Experimental evidence on the workings of democratic institutions Institutions, property rights, and economic growth: the legacy of douglass north, New York: Cambridge University Press 266–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devetag, G., Ortmann, A. (2007). When and why? a critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory. Experimental Economics, 10(3), 331–344. 10.1007/s10683-007-9178-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., Gneezy, U., & Zwick, R., Rapoport, A. (2005). Gender and coordination Experimental business research, Boston: Springer 253–262. 10.1007/0-387-24244-9_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertac, S., Gurdal, M. Y. (2012). Deciding to decide: gender, leadership and risk-taking in groups. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 83(1), 24–30. 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125. 10.1007/s40881-015-0004-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, P. J., Eckel, C., Komai, M., & Zhan, W. (2017). It Pays to Be a Man: Rewards for Leaders in a Coordination Game. Working Paper 01–17. Monash University.Google Scholar
Healy, A., Pate, J. (2011). Can teams help to close the gender competition gap? The Economic Journal, 121(555), 1192–1204. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02409.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heursen, L., Ranehill, E., & Weber, R. A. (2018). Are women less effective leaders than men? Evidence from experiments using coordination games. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Kanthak, K., Woon, J. (2015). Women don’t run? election aversion and candidate entry. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 595–612. 10.1111/ajps.12158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, D. M., Padgitt, K., Peart, S. J., Houser, D., Xiao, E. (2011). Leadership, cheap talk and really cheap talk. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 77(1), 40–52. 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.02.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederle, M., Vesterlund, L. (2011). Gender and competition. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 601–630. 10.1146/annurev-economics-111809-125122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuben, E., Rey-Biel, P., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L. (2012). The emergence of male leadership in competitive environments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 83(1), 111–117. 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12), 4403–4408. 10.1073/pnas.1314788111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sahin, S. G., Eckel, C., Komai, M. (2015). An experimental study of leadership institutions in collective action games. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 100–113. 10.1007/s40881-015-0010-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timko, K. (2017). The selection process and not gender matters for effective leadership. PhD Thesis. University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Van Huyck, J. B., Battalio, R. C., Beil, R. O. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–248.Google Scholar
Weber, R. A., Camerer, C. F., Rottenstreich, Y., Knez, M. J. (2001). The illusion of leadership: misattribution of cause in coordination games. Organization Science, 12(5), 582–598. 10.1287/orsc.12.5.582.10090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zizzo, D. J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 75–98. 10.1007/s10683-009-9230-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Reuben and Timko supplementary material

Reuben and Timko supplementary material
Download Reuben and Timko supplementary material(File)
File 902.3 KB