Explore the vast range of titles available.

We argue that female representation in top management brings informational and social diversity benefits to the top management team, enriches the behaviors exhibited by managers throughout the firm, and motivates women in middle management. The result should be improved managerial task performance and thus better firm performance. We test our theory using 15 years of panel data on the top management teams of the S&P 1,500 firms. We find that female representation in top management improves firm performance but only to the extent that a firm's strategy is focused on innovation, in which context the informational and social benefits of gender diversity and the behaviors associated with women in management are likely to be especially important for managerial task performance.

Motivated by a growing literature in the social sciences suggesting that the transition to fatherhood has a profound effect on men's values, we study how the wages of employees change after a male chief executive officer (CEO) has children, using comprehensive panel data on the employees, CEOs, and families of CEOs in all but the smallest Danish firms between 1996 and 2006. We find that (a) a male CEO generally pays his employees less generously after fathering a child, (b) the birth of a daughter has a less negative influence on wages than does the birth of a son and has a positive influence if the daughter is the CEO's first, and (c) the wages of female employees are less adversely affected than are those of male employees and positively affected by the CEO's first child of either gender. We also find that male CEOs pay themselves more after fathering a child, especially after fathering a son. These results are consistent with a desire by the CEO to husband more resources for his family after fathering a child and the psychological priming of the CEO's generosity after the birth of his first daughter and specifically toward women after the birth of his first child of either gender.

This article advances strategic management by developing a data-driven simulation method to analyze how the characteristics of a group influence the characteristics of the group's components. We apply our method to the underrepresentation of women in the top management of S&P 1,500 firms. Although extant research suggests that the presence of women in top management could be self-reinforcing, we theorize and provide strong evidence that women face an implicit quota, whereby a firm's leadership makes an effort to have a small number of women in top management, but makes less effort to have, or even resists having, larger numbers of women. In consequence, the presence of a woman on a top management team reduces the likelihood that another woman occupies a position on that team.

We present a theory of how a rational, profit-maximizing firm would respond to pressure for gender pay equity by strategically distributing raises to reduce the pay gap between its female and male employees at minimum cost. Using formal analysis and pay data from a real employer, we show that (1) employees in low-paying jobs and whose pay-related observables are similar to those of men at the firm are most likely to get raises; (2) counterintuitively, some men may get raises, and giving raises to certain women would increase the pay gap; and (3) a firm can reduce the gender pay gap as measured by a much larger percentage than the overall increase in pay to women at the firm. We also identify the conditions under which a firm could “explain away” a gender pay gap using other pay-related observables, such as job category, as well as the conditions under which this strategy would backfire. Our paper helps explain some empirical puzzles, such as the tendency for some men to get raises after gender equity pay reviews, and yields a rich set of implications for empirical research and practice. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1248 .

The international business (IB) literature has mostly emphasized the impact of location and firm characteristics on location choices. However, industries with a significant presence of multinational enterprises (MNEs) are oligopolistic in nature, which suggests that rivalry among firms plays an important role in firms' dynamic decision-making processes. This paper explores how rivalry and differential knowledge accumulation among competitors affect MNEs' geographic expansion across time and markets. Specifically, we build a model in which two competing firms with different capabilities simultaneously decide a sequence of market entries. Following previous research, we allow the possibility that certain markets are closer (a better fit) to one firm than to the other, and that certain knowledge is more transferable across markets (less market specific). We then solve the model computationally, and identify three equilibrium strategies — avoid, collocate, and stronger-chases-weaker — depending on the initial relative firm capabilities, market attractiveness, market—firm fit, and knowledge transferability. By explicitly incorporating firm rivalry across multiple markets, our model offers a comprehensive approach to understanding the drivers behind MNEs' sequential location choices, and offers alternative explanations for some important empirical observations in IB, such as bunching and second-mover advantage in market entries.

We present a theory of how a rational, profit-maximizing firm would respond to pressure for gender pay equity by strategically distributing raises to reduce the pay gap between its female and male employees at minimum cost. Using formal analysis and pay data from a real employer, we show that (1) employees in low-paying jobs and whose pay-related observables are similar to those of men at the firm are most likely to get raises; (2) counterintuitively, some men may get raises, and giving raises to certain women would increase the pay gap; and (3) a firm can reduce the gender pay gap as measured by a much larger percentage than the overall increase in pay to women at the firm. We also identify the conditions under which a firm could \"explain away\" a gender pay gap using other pay-related observables, such as job category, as well as the conditions under which this strategy would backfire. Our paper helps explain some empirical puzzles, such as the tendency for some men to get raises after gender equity pay reviews, and yields a rich set of implications for empirical research and practice.

We present a theory of how a rational, profit-maximizing firm would respond to pressure for gender pay equity by strategically distributing raises to reduce the pay gap between its female and male employees at minimum cost. Using formal analysis and pay data from a real employer, we show that (1) employees in low-paying jobs and whose pay-related observables are similar to those of men at the firm are most likely to get raises; (2) counterintuitively, some men may get raises, and giving raises to certain women would increase the pay gap; and (3) a firm can reduce the gender pay gap as measured by a much larger percentage than the overall increase in pay to women at the firm. We also identify the conditions under which a firm could \"explain away\" a gender pay gap using other pay-related observables, such as job category, as well as the conditions under which this strategy would backfire. Our paper helps explain some empirical puzzles, such as the tendency for some men to get raises after gender equity pay reviews, and yields a rich set of implications for empirical research and practice.

We present a theory of how a rational, profit-maximizing firm would respond to pressure for gender pay equity by strategically distributing raises to reduce the pay gap between its female and male employees at minimum cost. Using formal analysis and pay data from a real employer, we show that (1) employees in low-paying jobs and whose pay-related observables are similar to those of men at the firm are most likely to get raises; (2) counterintuitively, some men may get raises, and giving raises to certain women would increase the pay gap; and (3) a firm can reduce the gender pay gap as measured by a much larger percentage than the overall increase in pay to women at the firm. We also identify the conditions under which a firm could \"explain away\" a gender pay gap using other pay-related observables, such as job category, as well as the conditions under which this strategy would backfire. Our paper helps explain some empirical puzzles, such as the tendency for some men to get raises after gender equity pay reviews, and yields a rich set of implications for empirical research and practice.

We present a theory of how a rational, profit-maximizing firm would respond to pressure for gender pay equity by strategically distributing raises to reduce the pay gap between its female and male employees at minimum cost. Using formal analysis and pay data from a real employer, we show that (1) employees in low-paying jobs and whose pay-related observables are similar to those of men at the firm are most likely to get raises; (2) counterintuitively, some men may get raises, and giving raises to certain women would increase the pay gap; and (3) a firm can reduce the gender pay gap as measured by a much larger percentage than the overall increase in pay to women at the firm. We also identify the conditions under which a firm could \"explain away\" a gender pay gap using other pay-related observables, such as job category, as well as the conditions under which this strategy would backfire. Our paper helps explain some empirical puzzles, such as the tendency for some men to get raises after gender equity pay reviews, and yields a rich set of implications for empirical research and practice.