This symposium proposes that experiments have the potential to be used more effectively in strategy and entrepreneurship research if they leverage methodological innovations from other disciplines that have a longer tradition of using experiments. The symposium combines the perspectives of leading experts on experiments in psychology captured on video with a live debate and commentary with management scholars with deep expertise in experiments. The management scholars participating in the live debate will ‘translate’ best practices from psychology, and discuss to what extent and how they can be applied to research in strategy and entrepreneurship by putting them in the context of their own work. Presenters will outline specific opportunities to advance the theory, techniques, and variety of topics that methodologically advanced experiments can address and provides actionable insights for researchers at all stages of their career. This symposium builds on the success of the symposium held during the Academy of Management 2022 that focused on insights from economics and saw participation from over 100 scholars (both in person and via Zoom).

Institutions can convey a sense of warmth by cultivating an informal culture. One way to communicate the institution’s cultural informality is for employees to use first names rather than earned titles (“title references”). But which institutional constituents benefit from this practice of “un-titling” and how? Research suggests lower status members—such as female and junior faculty members in business schools—rely on legitimacy cues like titles in order to obtain evaluations that are comparable to higher status peers. Four studies (N = 1,815) provide survey, archival, and experimental evidence for gender and occupational rank distinctions in title references, as well as the role that institutional culture informality plays in how faculty members are perceived and ultimately evaluated. Title references are associated with more favorable evaluations from students, but female faculty members are less apt to receive them and struggle to title themselves by “self-titling” in the absence of formal norms. There is a warmth versus competence trade-off when faculty express a preference of address, such that faculty members requesting to be called by their first names (vs. self-titling) benefit from students’ increased perceptions of warmth but are disadvantaged by perceived lack of competence. Benefits accrue to seasoned, full professors (rather than unseasoned, assistant professors) who opt for first name basis, leveraging the increased perception of warmth without incurring a perceived competence cost at that higher occupational rank. Female full professors requesting to be called by their first names (e.g., “Just call me Megan”) derive the most benefit among all examined conditions, effectively navigating the double bind of gendered expectations.

Women and members of many racial and ethnic groups remain starkly underrepresented in entrepreneurship worldwide. Recent literature attributes women’s underrepresentation to heightened structural and normative barriers such as son-favorism or biases in startup evaluations. Diversity has also been shown to shape firm-level outcomes such as creativity or productivity. This presenter symposium advances our understanding in those two key areas - diversity and entrepreneurship. Specifically, the symposium focuses on the following two questions: First, how do we reduce barriers for women and minority groups and increase their representation and inclusion in entrepreneurship? Second, how do greater representation and inclusion of women and minority groups impact startup performance? The symposium broadens our understanding by shedding light on different stages in the entrepreneurial process and by promoting work which uses an experimental paradigm. The Effect of Relatable Role Models on Increasing Female Participation in STEM Entrepreneurship Author: Jonathan Thomas Eckhardt; Wisconsin Institute for Discovery Author: Brent Goldfarb; U. of Maryland Author: Minah Park; U. of Wisconsin, Madison Author: Molly Carnes; U. of Wisconsin–Madison Author: Jennifer Sheridan; U. of Wisconsin–Madison Author: Markus Brauer; U. of Wisconsin–Madison Relational structures, incentives, and performance implications for start-up firms Author: Jana Gallus; UCLA Anderson School of Management Author: Tami Kim; U. of Virginia Darden School of Business Affiliation-based Hiring in Start-up Firms and the Evolution of Organizational Diversity Author: Rhett Andrew Brymer; U. of Cincinnati Author: Vera Rocha; Copenhagen Business School “Gender Diversity Matching” Helps Ventures Raise Funding: Evidence from a Field Study of Techstars Author: Dana Kanze; London Business School Author: Alessandro Piazza; Rice U. Increasing the Performance of Women-owned Businesses through Time-saving Services:A Field Experiment Author: Solene Delecourt; Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley

Achieving gender equity in entrepreneurship is a pressing societal concern. A growing number of studies have provided consistent evidence for gender disparities and barriers for female entrepreneurs. Yet, research also suggests that under certain conditions, tied to the unique features of the entrepreneurship context, there may also be a female advantage in venture evaluations and funding outcomes. In this symposium, we hone in on this burgeoning line of inquiry by bringing together four presentations that investigate when and why a female (dis)advantage emerges, and how certain features of this context help to mitigate gender bias. Based on a diverse array of methods (archival, experimental, and video metrics) and samples (angel investors, accelerators, and cofounders), the presentations highlight novel mechanisms underlying gender bias in entrepreneurship settings. Overall, this symposium aims to 1) offer actionable insights for recognizing and addressing gender bias in entrepreneurship and 2) identify new directions for gender research more broadly. Women Entrepreneurs Don’t Ask (For Enough) in the Entrepreneurial Negotiation Process? Presenter: Anyi Ma; Tulane U. The Effects of Masculinity Displays by Female Entrepreneurs on Venture Evaluation Presenter: Soojin Oh; Pennsylvania State U. Presenter: Aparna Joshi; Penn State Smeal College of Business How the Functional Titles of Male and Female Cofounders Affect Funding in Mixed-Gender Founding Team Presenter: Steven Gray; U. of Texas at Austin Presenter: Melanie Milovac; INSEAD “Gender Diversity Matching” Helps Ventures Raise Funding: Evidence from a Natural Experiment Presenter: Dana Kanze; London Business School Presenter: Alessandro Piazza; Rice U.

Male-dominated organizations are settings that not only devalue women but also misvalue women in ways that are likewise detrimental. What happens when a woman in a male-dominated organization is told that only the strongest of women can survive in that environment, and she is one of the chosen few lucky enough to be working there? Based on theories of resource scarcity, social dominance, and social identity, we propose that a factor of benevolent sexism known as protective paternalism can manifest as expressions of gender scarcity as opposed to gender abundance in organizations. We outline a model by which female numerical minorities in male-dominated organizations are indoctrinated into a “gender mindset,” internalizing the subtyped social identity of being an “Exceptional Woman” valued due to her rarity as a female numerical exception. We reason that a prospective female entrant will trigger a social identity threat to the “Exceptional Woman” who will constitute less of a numerical exception upon her entry, inducing competitive as opposed to cooperative interdependence as a threat response. Rather than competition originating from numerical minorities themselves, our theoretical model sheds light on the institutional inductions of competition that serve to divide and undermine them. By introducing the concept of gender mindset, we provide a theoretical model for developing interventions that foster cooperation, facilitating movement toward gender neutrality in male-dominated organizational settings.

Despite its rarity, venture capital raising has captured the media’s attention rather than the far more common occurrence of venture death. We shed light on a situational factor that influences why founders overoptimistically believe they can beat the odds of failure when already familiar with the low base rates of market entry success. Drawing upon the entrepreneurial cognition literature regarding the availability heuristic, we theorize that frequent media mentions make information about fundraising more “available” to prospective entrepreneurs, increasing their motivation to start a venture by causing them to overestimate the magnitude of funding they will be able to raise. We find significant support for this theory through a mixed methods approach—encompassing a ten-year archival study, a randomized experiment (N = 317), and an entrepreneur survey (N =110)—that accounts for macroeconomic factors and personal characteristics, including levels of dispositional optimism and prior knowledge. Implications for both theory and practice are considered.

Despite concerted efforts to enforce ethical standards, transgressions continue to plague US corporations. This paper investigates whether the way in which a corporation pursues its goals can influence ethical violations, manifested as involvement in discrimination. We test this hypothesis among franchises, which employ a considerable amount of low-income workers adversely affected by discrimination. Drawing upon Regulatory Mode Theory, we perform a linguistic analysis of franchise mission statements to determine their degree of locomotion and assessment language. EEOC archival data for the past decade reveals that regulatory mode predicts franchise involvement in discrimination. Discriminatory behavior is associated with franchises whose mission statements motivate employees to embrace urgent action (locomotion mode) over thoughtful consideration (assessment mode). Two experiments demonstrate that participants exposed to high locomotion mission statements tend to disregard ethical standards due to their need for expediency, making significantly more discriminatory managerial decisions than those exposed to high assessment mission statements.

Are female founding CEOs penalized when raising funds for their ventures based on industry served? Across an observational study conducted on ventures seeking funding (N = 392) and an experimental study conducted on investors allocating venture funding (N = 130), we find evidence for a "lack of fit" effect: Female-led ventures catering to male-dominated industries receive significantly less funding at significantly lower valuations than female-led ventures catering to female-dominated industries. In contrast, male-led ventures attain similar funding and valuation outcomes regardless of the gender dominance of the industries to which they cater. We confirm that this is because investors perceive lower degrees of fit between founding CEO and venture for female-led ventures catering to male- as opposed to female-dominated industries (with no perceived fit differences for male-led ventures across industries). Degree of investor sophistication emerges as a potential attenuating factor, appearing to help reduce gender bias from perceived lack of fit.

Despite concerted efforts to enforce ethical standards, transgressions continue to plague US corporations. This paper investigates whether the way in which an organization pursues its goals can influence ethical violations, manifested as involvement in discrimination. We test this hypothesis among franchises, which employ a considerable amount of low-income workers adversely affected by discrimination. Drawing upon Regulatory Mode Theory, we perform a linguistic analysis of franchise mission statements to determine their degree of locomotion and assessment language. EEOC archival data for the past decade reveals that regulatory mode predicts franchise involvement in discrimination. Discriminatory behavior is associated with franchises whose mission statements motivate employees to embrace urgent action (locomotion mode) over thoughtful consideration (assessment mode). Two experiments demonstrate that participants exposed to high locomotion mission statements tend to disregard ethical standards due to their need for expediency, making significantly more discriminatory managerial decisions than those exposed to high assessment mission statements.

Male entrepreneurs are known to raise higher levels of funding than their female counterparts, but the underlying mechanism for this funding disparity remains contested. Drawing upon regulatory focus theory, we propose that the gap originates with a gender bias in the questions that investors pose to entrepreneurs. A field study conducted on question-and-answer interactions at TechCrunch Disrupt New York City during 2010 through 2016 reveals that investors tend to ask male entrepreneurs promotion-focused questions and female entrepreneurs prevention-focused questions, and that entrepreneurs tend to respond with matching regulatory focus. This distinction in the regulatory focus of investor questions and entrepreneur responses results in divergent funding outcomes for entrepreneurs whereby those asked promotion-focused questions raise significantly higher amounts of funding than those asked prevention-focused questions. We demonstrate that every additional prevention-focused question significantly hinders the entrepreneur's ability to raise capital, fully mediating gender's effect on funding. By experimentally testing an intervention, we find that entrepreneurs can significantly increase funding for their startups when responding to prevention-focused questions with promotion-focused answers. As we offer evidence regarding tactics that can be employed to diminish the gender disadvantage in funding outcomes, this study has practical as well as theoretical implications for entrepreneurship.

This document is authorized for use only by DANA KANZE (dkanze19@ gsb. columbia. edu). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerservice@ harvardbusiness. org or 800-988-0886 for additional copies. the country. The prevailing hope among academics, policy makers, and practitioners alike has been that this gap will narrow as more women become venture capitalists. However, homophily does not seem to be the only culprit behind the funding gap. Over the past several years, the US has seen an increase in the number of female venture capitalists (from 3% of all VCs in 2014 to an estimated 7% today), but the funding gap has only widened.Research my colleagues and I conducted offers new evidence as to why female entrepreneurs continue to receive less funding than their male counterparts. We observed Q&A interactions between 140 prominent venture capitalists (40% of them female) and 189 entrepreneurs (12% female) that took place at TechCrunch Disrupt New York, an annual startup funding competition. Our study then tracked all funding rounds for the startups that launched at the competition. These startups were comparable in terms of quality and capital needs, yet their total amounts of funding raised over time differed significantly: Male-led startups in our sample raised five times more funding than female-led ones.