Are Women Less Competitive than Men? Explaining the Gender Gap

(Getty Images)

Why are there fewer female CEOs? One professor says he has the answer. Call it the Competition Gap.

For the past four decades, ever since women began vying with men in the workforce on a large-scale, economists have wondered when gender differences in pay and achievement would shrink. In recent years the question has shifted from when to why not already. Some blame discrimination. Others say women face more difficult career paths than men because of child-birth. But a growing number of academic economic studies, including a new one that was published this week as a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, are increasingly pointing to a new reason for gender inequalities in the workforce. When it comes to competitiveness, women just don’t stack up.

Yes, women, on average, have seemed to fare better in this recession than men at least in terms of employment. And women play a more powerful role in our economy than ever before. Nonetheless, it’s clear that women still lag men in the workforce. And not just here, but nearly everywhere. In mid-October, the World Economic Forum found in its annual report on gender inequalities that in every single country for which there is data females tend to earn less than males in similar jobs.

In the latest study,  Do Competitive Work Places Deter Female Workers?, researchers, headed by University of Chicago economics professor John List, placed help wanted ads for two similar positions on internet job boards. Both were clerical, but one was titled “Seeking Sports News Assistant.” The other was described as more generic office work. In all, nearly 7,000 people replied to one of the two positions. Interested applicants received an e-mail detailing how the job would work. All were told they would have frequent deadlines, and there would be a high value placed on producing timely quality information. Some applicants, though, were told they would be getting a fixed $15 an hour for their work. Others were told the job would pay a base salary plus a bonus. In the second scheme, the new hires would be placed in pairs, and the one whose work was deemed the best would get the additional pay. Still interested? Send in your resume and application, the e-mail said.

For both jobs, more females replied to both job listings than males. Of the applicants to the sports assistant position, 53.5% of those interested were women. The generic job listing was split 80-20 females to male. Here’s the interesting part: for both jobs, when the element of the bonus was added, males were far more likely to actually send in their application than females. Or worded the other way around, females were more likely to pass on the job once they found out part of their pay would be based on their performance versus a co-worker. In the most competitive salary structure, where the base pay was $12 an hour and the bonus $6, List determined that men were 55.5% more likely to apply for the job than women. The conclusion: Women don’t like competition.

How does this relate to the gender gap? List says, anecdotally at least, it appears the industries and positions with the most competitive work environments tend to pay the most. Lise Vesterlund, an economist at the University of Pittsburgh, says she has observed the competition gap in her research as well. And she says it can have broad implications for the salaries and the careers of women in any industry. Many promotions, for instance, are the result of employees going to their bosses and telling them they are outperforming other workers. CEO succession often involves two or three top employees in an open competition for the head job.  If women don’t like to compete, they are less likely to put themselves in these types of situation. That can allow less capable male workers to end up with the better job titles and bigger pay checks.

“It is very hard to determine what part of the persistent gender imbalances in the labor market are because of discrimination or because women tend to take time off from the work place for child rearing,” says List. ” What we are proposing is that another at least non-trival reason for that difference is that women shy away from competitive workplaces.”

Marti Barletta, who thinks about women and the workplace a lot more than I do and is the author of the book Marketing to Women, agrees that women are less likely to engage in risk taking behavior, and that “boys and men are better braggers.” Still, she doesn’t think that automatically translates to higher, or lower, incomes.

For me, this comes down to one question: Do I think I am better than the excellent blogger Megan McArdle? Heck yeah.

Related Topics: Economy & Policy, jobs, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Brendan McDermid / Reuters

    Facebook’s Stock Falls Below $30 for First Time

    (NEW YORK) — Facebook’s stock has fallen below $30 for the first time since its much-awaited public debut this month.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    U.S. consumer prices rose faster than expected in May. (Mario Anzuoni / Reuters)

    Consumer Confidence in the Economy Plunged in May

    NEW YORK — American confidence in the economy suffered the biggest drop in eight months as worries about the weak jobs, housing and stock markets rattled them again. The decline comes after a few months of optimism amid some positive economic news.

  • Debbie Soon, VP Executive Leadership Initiatives, Catalyst

    Let’s debunk this myth that women are not as competitive as men. Catalyst has found that women aspire to success just as much as men do—and they define it similarly.

    In our report, “Women and Men in U.S. Corporate Leadership,” we found that while both sexes equally sought the top jobs, women faced a host of barriers that men did not. These included limited access to informal networks, fewer role models and that perennial challenge: gender-based stereotyping.

    Our research shows that when stereotypes based on what a successful leader looks and acts like become engrained in decisions on hiring and promotion, they self-perpetuate—shutting women out of top positions in the process. Concluding that women are not competitive only adds to the vicious cycle.

    Not going for the risk of less pay and more bonus? Hey, maybe that’s just smart.

  • tanboontee

    Women are as capable as men, in practically every field of human endeavor. They possess high aspirations and are no less competitive than men.

    Traditionally, women have been charged with virtually full responsibilities to take care of and bring up their families, thus deprived of the opportunities to compete and shine in the outside world. Given the right circumstances and appropriate power, they will prevail. (btt1943)

  • deconstructiva

    I’m guessing this is more a risk-averse vs. risk-taker issue and less of a gender-based one by itself.

  • http://moderatemainer.wordpress.com moderatemainer

    Interesting article, and I would agree that this something that can be inferred simply from consistently observing human behavior. I’m a teacher, and I have a thousand anecdotes that would illustrate this point. The author was not saying that as a rule females aren’t competitive, but that research shows there is a difference between men and women. The trick now would be somehow instituting measures to promote a culture where jobs are strictly performance based rather than on competition. The reality though is that isn’t the world in which we live. It’s ok for men and women to be different. One of the most misguided aspects on the feminist movement is the insistence on the total similarity of the sexes, and supposedly the only differences in our behavior arise from our environments. More and more studies are showing this to be a false premise.

  • http://moderatemainer.wordpress.com moderatemainer

    How does your study define “sought?” Was it merely a result of asking women, “Do you want to gain a leadership position” or did you actually look at the application process for CEO hirings? That is a large distinction. Forgive me for not reading Catalyst but I’ve never come across it in my studies or career. Also I would argue that you are over-stating the impact of this article. This is not the final word on this debate, and it hardly adds to a “vicious cycle.” I would hope an author would be led to some sort of conclusion, as it is pretty fundamental to any article. Looking at the data that was analyzed and professor that was interviewed, I’d say the conclusion was pretty apt. Now, maybe you have a problem with the studies themselves or their nature, or maybe even the professor, but your beef is not with the author. Do you have a problem with the pedagogy of the study or the data that resulted? Hopefully as an educated person you would want researchers to be free to reach conclusions and interpret data without being biased or the conclusion being forgone. (Even if the data concludes something that doesn’t fall into your preconceived notions)

  • http://proguesso.wordpress.com proguesso

    A specific example of either lack of interest in the profession or a lack of desire to participate in this competitive field, engineering historically shows low numbers of women. It is not for lack of insentive in academics where scholarships and female focused recruiting are heavily resourced, nor is it due to lack of recruiting/hiring efforts to place female engineers.

    The statistics nationally show that U.S. engineering colleges graduate an average of 17% women.

    Is it the work unattractive or the competition?

  • volkerh

    “The trick now would be somehow instituting measures to promote a culture where jobs are strictly performance based rather than on competition.”
    Sorry, but the whole world is based on competition. As soon as you leave school, relative performance is all that matters.

    And any boss will ask himself why he should pick the second best worker, when the best one works for the same pay.

    Also, in upper management, sucessfully capturing a job is, for me at least, part of the job requirement. It shows a fighting spirit which is absolutely necessary for fighting the competition afterwards.

    There ought to be more Hillarys or Condoleezzas.

  • deconstructiva

    Maybe if more women were monetarily sovereign this would close the gender gap. (Stephen, et al will know what this means.)

  • darkhorsewins

    Men are simply more competent than women because they possess a greater mental and physical capacity. All throughout history, the greatest inventions (including society) are a result of MEN.

    The Principles of Social Competence:
    http://manhood101.com/ebook.html

  • headybrew

    Thanks for the chuckle. I’m not sure this particular topic is within Rodger’s area of expertise. But who knows, he may still have something to add.

  • ormaybeitsjust

    Women have only been in the workforce for 60 or 70 years, and womens suffrage happened barely one century ago. That to me seems a far greater explanation for why there are fewer female CEO’s.

    The study itself made relatively no sense and definitely didn’t seem like a legitamite (objective) scientific study. Seems like a big leap to conclude that because more men applied for a job offering a bonus (with a limited sampling of people none the less) that women aren’t as competitive. This was a job in sports broadcasting none the less. And what does a bonus have to do with competitiveness exactly? Perhaps the women wanted a higher salary upfront rather than a mystery bonus, after all even the study acknowleges women are paid less across the board. Why not design a study where men and women actually compete, hook them up to electrodes and see what physiological response you get, then lets talk…

    The most competitive people I know are women. Just reading the few comments here you can see the prevalance of sexism in and out of the workplace is rampant. When I first saw the headline I imediately wondered what the reaction to this article would be if instead the title was “Are black men less competitve then white men? One professor says this explains the race pay gap in the workplace.” But Time wouldn’t publish that article, so it’s a moot point.

  • doubleang

    I shouldnt even respond to this troll, but “jokes” like this are ridiculous and lead to comments like “ormaybeitsjust”s comment on “Just reading the few comments here you can see the prevalance of sexism in and out of the workplace is rampant” below.

    @ormaybeitjust: I dont see how the comments in here show sexism in the workplace. your always going to get troll responses to articles like these from 15 year olds, who certainly don’t represent the population.

  • ormaybeitsjust

    Doubleang, I can only imagine you’re a man because sexism IS rampant in the workplace, it’s not just my speculation.
    http://entrepreneursatutsa.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/gender-inequity/.
    On average women make substantially less money then men in the same position from day one of their first job (nearly 5K less according to a study.)
    The reality is sexism is the most socially accepted form of discrimination today. I work in a business field where there are far more professional female employees then men, however men hold at least 80% or more of the management and ownership positions. I’ve witnessed many overachieving women being passed up by male counterparts who certainly produce less, but have the advantage of the “boys club” relationships to move up. I think the situation will resolve itself, but only after a few generations. Just need to wait for all these old bigoted farts to die off!!!!!

  • marychar

    “In the second scheme, the new hires would be placed in pairs, and the one whose work was deemed the best would get the additional pay. Still interested? Send in your resume and application, the e-mail said.”

    They are proposing a work environment wherein both you and the person you are paired with, the person you work with every day, would know that one of you is going to get shafted even if both of you do a very good job. That would be a horrible environment to work in day after day. Women are very competitive. Since the researcher is a guy, it’s doubtful that he has much experience with women’s interactions. Oh boy can we be competitive! But not wanting to take on a job that you know would be unpleasant from day one is hardly refusing to be competitive.

  • marychar

    Yes the world is indeed based on competition, but it’s usually more the who you know kind of competition. I’ve seen many people who were very poorly qualified promoted mostly because they were good at identifying the right tushies to kiss.

  • Stephen Gandel

    Very funny. No sign of Roger yet.

  • http://moderatemainer.wordpress.com moderatemainer

    Someone’s still a bit bitter about not getting that promotion eh?
    There is anecdotal evidence to support both sides of the argument. While you may disagree with the article, you are citing personal information while the author uses a study conducted at the University of Chicago. Which would you say is more valid?

  • http://moderatemainer.wordpress.com moderatemainer

    I think you completely missed the point of this article when you came up with your misguided analogy. The point is that this was based on a academic study, rather than looking at the hard numbers and inferring “well, men must be more competitive than women.” That’s what you do when you make the ludicrous assumption that black men are less competitive than white men. Do an experiment and come up with some data before you publish any sort of conclusion.

    Interested in what examples in the previous comments illustrate the prevalence of sexism? Besides the one person who was pretty obviously joking, the comments seemed reasonable.

    Also, both the sports news position and the more general position were tested, so that variable is controlled, but you still cite it as proof that the study is dubious.

  • volkerh

    I think you’re illustrating Stephen’s point very nicely.

    Being competitive also means that you are wiling to fight, which, in turn includes what you are willing to put up with in order to win.

    “That would be a horrible environment to work in day after day.”
    This is how performance pay in management always works. There’s a fixed bonus budget (depending on company profit) and it gets distributed by relative performance.

    That’s also one of the more important differences between school (marks based on absolute performance) and real life (position in a ranking) and your attitude shows why women have better marks but lower wages.

    “Oh boy can we be competitive!”
    Apparently not when it’s about money and jobs.

  • darkhorsewins

    @Doubleang you’re an emasculated fucktard with the IQ of a donut. You should stick to tight emo faggot jeans and cutting your wrists because you’re the last person qualified to comment on anything pertaining to the male gender. Go put your tampon back in you dumb cunt.

blog comments powered by Disqus