Advertisement

Does gender diversity among new venture team matter for R&D intensity in technology-based new ventures? Evidence from a field experiment

  • Mahamadou Biga-Diambeidou
  • Maria Giuseppina BrunaEmail author
  • Rey Dang
  • L’Hocine Houanti
Article
  • 90 Downloads

Abstract

This paper reports on a field experiment conducted to estimate the impact of the gender diversity of new venture top management teams (TMT) on research and development (R&D) intensity. Specifically, we study an entrepreneurship business game, played in groups of three, in which master’s-level business studies students play the role of top managers. We manipulated the gender composition of the teams and assigned students randomly to teams based on gender. We do not find any significant relationship between new venture TMT gender diversity and R&D intensity, regardless of the number of female managers on TMTs, the profitability of firms or the stage of development and growth of the firm. Consequently, we do not find any gender differences; there are no gender differences regarding decision making in terms of firm risk-taking. Our findings may belie the common perception that women are, in general, more risk-averse than men. The implication of our study is that we do not support (or deny) the “business case” for female managers on TMTs. Likewise, we find no evidence of any negative effect either. Our evidence implies that the representation of top female managers should be based on criteria other than innovation behavior in the early stage of a new venture growth and development process. The study extends our understanding of the effects of TMT composition and contributes to research on innovation behavior and new venture teams.

Keywords

New venture TMT Gender diversity R&D Entrepreneurship Field experiment 

JEL classifications

J16 030 L26 M13 

Notes

References

  1. Adams, R., & Funk, P. (2012). Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter? Management Science, 58(2), 219–235.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Alexiev, A., Jansen, J., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2010). Top management team advice seeking and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of TMT heterogeneity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1343–1364.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00919.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apesteguia, J., Azmat, G., & Iriberri, N. (2012). The impact of gender composition on team performance and decision making: Evidence from the field. Management Science, 58(1), 78–93.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atanassov, J. (2013). Do hostile takeovers stifle innovation? Evidence from antitakeover legislation and corporate patenting. The Journal of Finance, 68(3), 1097–1131.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atkinson, S., Baird, S., & Frye, M. (2003). Do female mutual fund managers manage differently? Journal of Financial Research, 26(1), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6803.00041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Autio, E. (1997). New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative impacts. Research Policy, 26(3), 263–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00906-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baysinger, B., Kosnik, R., & Turk, T. (1991). Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 205–214.  https://doi.org/10.5465/256308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bird, B. (1989). Entrepreneurial Behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
  11. Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Bonney, L., Davis-Sramek, B., & Cadotte, E. (2016). “Thinking” about business markets: A cognitive assessment of market awareness. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2641–2648.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bougheas, S., Goerg, H., & Strobl, E. (2003). Is R&D financially restrained? Theory and evidence from Irish manufacturing. Review of Industrial Organization, 22(2), 159–174.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022905102446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1979). The inheritors: French students and their relations to culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Byrnes, J., Miller, D., & Schafer, W. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 367–383.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3152047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, S., Ni, X., & Tong, J. (2016). Gender diversity in the boardroom and risk management: A case of R&D investment. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 599–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chowdhury, S. (2005). Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: Is it important? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 727–746.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chrisman, J. (1999). The influence of outsider-generated knowledge resources on venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(4), 42.Google Scholar
  19. Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2010). Firm growth and R&D expenditure. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(2), 127–145.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590802472531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. D'Aveni, R., & Gunther, R. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: The Free press.Google Scholar
  21. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dinopoulos, E., & Thompson, P. (1999). Scale effects in Schumpeterian models of economic growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(2), 157–185.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001910050079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dollinger, M. (1995). Entrepreneurship: Strategies and resources. Boston: Irwin.Google Scholar
  24. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2726526 Google Scholar
  25. Drucker, P. (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  26. Eisenhardt, K. (2013). Top management teams and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics, 40(4), 805–816.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9473-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ensley, M., & Hmieleski, K. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34(7), 1091–1105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ensley, M., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. (2003). Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 329–346.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00020-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Faccio, M., Marchica, M.-T., & Mura, R. (2016). CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 39(August), 193–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Falk, M. (2012). Quantile estimates of the impact of R&D intensity on firm performance. Small Business Economics, 39(1), 19–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9290-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D., & Cannella, A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Fuchs, S., & Sarstedt, M. (2010). Is there a tacit acceptance of student samples in marketing and management research? International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, 2(1), 62–72.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJDATS.2010.030011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ghosh, S. (2016). Banker on board and innovative activity. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4205–4214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gioia, D., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gupta, A., Smith, K., & Shalley, C. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hall, B. (1989). The impact of corporate restructuring on industrial research and development. NBER working paper no. 3216.Google Scholar
  37. Hambrick, D., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harper, D. (2008). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 613–626.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hillman, A., Cannella, A., & Harris, I. (2002). Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28(6), 747–763.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hmieleski, K., & Ensley, M. (2007). A contextual examination of new venture performance: Entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 865–889.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H., & Van Praag, M. (2013). The impact of gender diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from a field experiment. Management Science, 59(7), 1514–1528.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huang, J., & Kisgen, D. (2013). Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives overconfident relative to female executives? Journal of Financial Economics, 108(3), 822–839.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ito, K., & Pucik, V. (1993). R&D spending, domestic competition, and export performance of Japanese manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 61–75.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnson, J., & Powell, P. (1994). Decision making, risk and gender: Are managers different? British Journal of Management, 5(2), 123–138.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1994.tb00073.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johnson, S., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management, 39(1), 232–262.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312463938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kamm, J., Shuman, J., Seeger, J., & Nurick, A. (1990). Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: A research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(4), 7–17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879001400403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Klotz, A., Hmieleski, K., Bradley, B., & Busenitz, L. (2014). New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226–255.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313493325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lamiraud, K., & Vranceanu, R. (2018). Group gender composition and economic decision-making: Evidence from the Kallystée business game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 145(January), 294–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  50. Lechler, T. (2001). Social interaction: A determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success. Small Business Economics, 16(4), 263–278.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011167519304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lyngsie, J., & Foss, N. (2017). The more, the merrier? Women in top-management teams and entrepreneurship in established firms. Strategic Management Journal, 38(3), 487–505.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Markman, G., & Gartner, W. (2002). Is extraordinary growth profitable? A study of Inc. 500 high-growth companies. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(1), 65–75.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.t01-2-00004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Meakin, V., & Snaith, B. (1997). Putting together a goal-scoring team. In S. Birley & D. F. Muzyka (Eds.), Mastering Enterprise. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  55. Miller, T., & del Carmen Triana, M. (2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 755–786.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00839.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. OECD. (2012). OECD internet economy outlook 2012. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Perryman, A., Fernando, G., & Tripathy, A. (2016). Do gender differences persist? An examination of gender diversity on firm performance, risk, and executive compensation. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 579–586.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Porter, M. (2001). Strategy and the internet. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 62–78.Google Scholar
  59. Porter, M. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78–93.Google Scholar
  60. Priem, R., Lyon, D., & Dess, G. (1999). Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25(6), 935–953.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Quintana-García, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. (2016). Gender diversity in top management teams and innovation apabilities: The initial public offerings of biotechnology firms. Long Range Planning, 49(August), 507–518.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ratinho, T., Harms, R., & Walsh, S. (2015). Structuring the technology entrepreneurship publication landscape: Making sense out of chaos. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100(November), 168–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sahut, J. M., Hikkeorva, L., & Moez, K. (2013). Business model and performance of firms. International Business Research, 6(2), 64–76.  https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v6n2p64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sandberg, W., & Hofer, C. (1987). Improving new venture performance: The role of strategy, industry structure, and the entrepreneur. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 5–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90016-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sila, V., Gonzalez, A., & Hagendorff, J. (2016). Women on board: Does boardroom gender diversity affect firm risk? Journal of Corporate Finance, 36, 26–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Simon, M., Houghton, S., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 113–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00003-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Steffens, P., Terjesen, S., & Davidsson, P. (2012). Birds of a feather get lost together: New venture team composition and performance. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 727–743.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9358-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Timmons, J. (1990). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship in the 1990s. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  70. Wooldridge, J. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Wright, M., & Vanaelst, I. (2009). Entrepreneurial teams and new business creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yoo, Y., Boland, R., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhou, W., & Rosini, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial team diversity and performance: Toward an integrated model. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 5(1), 31–60.  https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2014-0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahamadou Biga-Diambeidou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria Giuseppina Bruna
    • 3
    Email author
  • Rey Dang
    • 4
  • L’Hocine Houanti
    • 5
  1. 1.ICN ARTEM Business School – CEREFIGE, Université LorraineNancyFrance
  2. 2.UCLouvain, LouRIMOttignies-Louvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  3. 3.IPAG Business School, Chair “Towards an Inclusive Company”ParisFrance
  4. 4.ISTEC ParisParisFrance
  5. 5.La Rochelle Business School - Excelia GroupLa RochelleFrance

Personalised recommendations