Advertisement

Journal of the Economic Science Association

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 123–135 | Cite as

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

  • Ernesto Reuben
  • Krisztina Timko
Original Paper

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 differences Leadership Democracy effect Leader effectiveness Coordination 

JEL classification

M14 M54 J16 C92 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded with the faculty research funds of Columbia University (No. ID0ENSAE1241).

Supplementary material

40881_2018_56_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (881 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 881 kb)

References

  1. Arbak, E., & Villeval, M. C. (2013). Voluntary leadership: motivation and influence. Social Choice and Welfare, 40(3), 635–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltrunaite, A., Bello, P., Casarico, A., & Profeta, P. (2014). Gender quotas and the quality of politicians. Journal of Public Economics, 118, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohnet, I., van Geen, A., & Bazerman, M. (2016). When performance trumps gender bias: joint vs. separate evaluation. Management Science, 62(5), 1225–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolton, P., Brunnermeier, M. K., & Veldkamp, L. (2010). Economists’ perspectives on leadership. In Nitin Nohria & Rakesh Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 239–264). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandts, J., Cooper, D. J., & Weber, R. A. (2015). Legitimacy, communication, and leadership in the turnaround game. Management Science, 61(11), 2627–2645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dal Bó, P. (2014). Experimental evidence on the workings of democratic institutions. In S. Galiani & I. Sened (Eds.), Institutions, property rights, and economic growth: the legacy of douglass north (pp. 266–288). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Devetag, G., & Ortmann, A. (2007). When and why? a critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory. Experimental Economics, 10(3), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dufwenberg, M., & Gneezy, U. (2005). Gender and coordination. In R. Zwick & A. Rapoport (Eds.), Experimental business research (pp. 253–262). Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Healy, A., & Pate, J. (2011). Can teams help to close the gender competition gap? The Economic Journal, 121(555), 1192–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heursen, L., Ranehill, E., & Weber, R.A. (2018). Are women less effective leaders than men? Evidence from experiments using coordination games. Unpublished ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  19. Kanthak, K., & Woon, J. (2015). Women don’t run? election aversion and candidate entry. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2011). Gender and competition. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 601–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Timko, K. (2017). The selection process and not gender matters for effective leadership. PhD Thesis. University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zizzo, D. J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York University Abu DhabiAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations