We examine the interface of entrepreneurship and society by considering a novel source of gender bias (public opinion) and a novel expression of it (affective evaluations). We posit that women-led teams displaying success will trigger a “penalty for success” bias, and this will be inhibited if the team receives a “stamp of approval” from a gender congruent individual (i.e., an investor who is a man). Analysis from our first study, based on archival data, indicated that other mechanisms might be at play that we could not tease apart in our archival data, so we conducted a follow-up experimental study to further examine our initial findings. Results jointly indicate that women are viewed unfavorably unless either (a) they are validated by success or endorsement from a man, or (b) they fail but are “warm and accommodating” about it. We also find that while men benefit from being validated by success or endorsement of an opposite-gender investor, they do not face a similarly steep penalty absent that validation.
AnglinA. H.CourtneyC.AllisonT. H. (2022). Venturing for others, subject to role expectations? A role congruity theory approach to social venture crowd funding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46, 421–448.
2.
BabinB. J.DardenW. R.BabinL. A. (1998). Negative emotions in marketing research: Affect or artifact?Journal of Business Research, 42(3), 271–285.
3.
BarbulescuR.BidwellM. (2013). Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers. Organization Science, 24(3), 737–756.
4.
BardasiE.SabarwalS.TerrellK. (2011). How do female entrepreneurs perform? Evidence from three developing regions. Small Business Economics, 37(4), 417–441.
5.
BaronR. A.MarkmanG. D.HirsaA. (2001). Perceptions of women and men as entrepreneurs: Evidence for differential effects of attributional augmenting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 923–929.
6.
BednarM. K.BoivieS.PrinceN. R. (2013). Burr under the saddle: How media coverage influences strategic change. Organization Science, 24(3), 910–925.
7.
BehfarK.OkhuysenG. A. (2018). Perspective—Discovery within validation logic: Deliberately surfacing, complementing, and substituting abductive reasoning in hypothetico-deductive inquiry. Organization Science, 29(2), 323–340.
8.
BrändleL.KuckertzA. (2023). Inequality and entrepreneurial agency: How social class origins affect entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Business & Society, 62(8), 1586–1636.
BrandonJ. (2015b, May). The Shark Tank Effect. Inc., p. 22.
11.
BundyJ.PfarrerM. D. (2015). A burden of responsibility: The role of social approval at the onset of a crisis. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 345–369.
12.
BurtR. S. (1998). The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society, 10(1), 5–46.
13.
CanalE. (2018a, July/August). Jamie Siminoff/Ring: How losing on Shark Tank forced me to succeed. Inc., pp. 39–40.
CanalE. (2018c, October). Yes, there is a Shark Tank bump. Inc., pp. 34–35.
16.
ChandlerG. N.BrobergJ. C.AllisonT. H. (2014). Customer value propositions in declining industries: Differences between industry representative and high-growth firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(3), 234–253.
CohenJ. B.PhamM. T.AndradeE. B. (2008). The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior. In HaugtvedtC. P.HerrP. M.KardesF. R. (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 297–348). Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
CraneA.HenriquesI.HustedB. W. (2018). Quants and poets: Advancing methods and methodologies in business and society research. Business & Society, 57(1), 3–25.
20.
DauntA. I.PanL. (2022). Does Gender Matter? Cognitive Biases, and Entrepreneurial Funding. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2022, No. 1, p. 16511). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
21.
DemeroutiE.RispensS. (2014). Improving the image of student-recruited samples: A commentary. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 34–41.
22.
DimitriadisS.LeeM.RamarajanL.BattilanaJ. (2017). Blurring the boundaries: The interplay of gender and local communities in the commercialization of social ventures. Organization Science, 28(5), 819–839.
23.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
24.
ErevellesS. (1998). The role of affect in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 42(3), 199–215.
25.
EtterM.ColleoniE.IlliaL.MeggiorinK.D’EugenioA. (2018). Measuring organizational legitimacy in social media: Assessing citizens’ judgments with sentiment analysis. Business & Society, 57(1), 60–97.
FisherG.KuratkoD. F.BloodgoodJ. M.HornsbyJ. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 52–71.
28.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
29.
FryP. (1975). Effects of male and female endorsement of beliefs on the problem solving choices of high and low dogmatic women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 96(1), 65–77.
GreenbergJ.MollickE. (2017). Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 341–374.
32.
GuptaV. K.GoktanA. B.GunayG. (2014). Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: A stereotype threat perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 273–288.
33.
GutierrezA.PaikY. (2022). The Impact of Entrepreneur Gender and National Culture on Access to Capital. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2022, No. 1, p. 16839). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
34.
GuzmanJ.KacperczykA. O. (2019). Gender gap in entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 48(7), 1666–1680.
35.
HeaveyC.SimsekZ.KyprianouC.RisiusM. (2020). How do strategic leaders engage with social media? A theoretical framework for research and practice. Strategic Management Journal, 41(8), 1490–1527.
36.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92.
37.
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S.FuchsD.TamkinsM. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427.
38.
HuangL.JoshiP.WakslakC.WuA. (2021). Sizing up entrepreneurial potential: Gender differences in communication and investor perceptions of long-term growth and scalability. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3), 716–740.
39.
IlliaL.ColleoniE.EtterM.MeggiorinK. (2023). Finding the tipping point: When heterogeneous evaluations in social media converge and influence organizational legitimacy. Business & Society, 62(1), 117–150.
40.
JachimowiczJ. M.ToC.AgasiS.CôtéS.GalinskyA. D. (2019). The gravitational pull of expressing passion: When and how expressing passion elicits status conferral and support from others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153, 41–62.
41.
JenningsJ. E.BrushC. G. (2013). Research on women entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and from) the broader entrepreneurship literature?The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 663–715.
42.
JohnsonM. A.StevensonR. M.LetwinC. R. (2018). A woman’s place is in the. . . startup! Crowdfunder judgments, implicit bias, and the stereotype content model. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(6), 813–831.
43.
JohnsonS.MurphyS.ZewdieS.ReichardR. (2008). The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(1), 39–60.
44.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan Publishers.
45.
KanzeD.ConleyM. A.OkimotoT. G.PhillipsD. J.MerluzziJ. (2020). Evidence that investors penalize female founders for lack of industry fit. Science Advances, 6(48), eabd7664.
46.
KanzeD.HuangL.ConleyM. A.HigginsE. T. (2018). We ask men to win & women not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 586–614.
47.
LambertonC.StephenA. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing: Research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 146–172.
LeeM.HuangL. (2018). Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organization Science, 29(1), 1–16.
50.
LiaoZ.ZhangJ. H.WangN.BottomW. P.DeichmannD.TangP. M. (2023). The gendered liability of venture novelty. Academy of Management Journal, 67, 289–296.
51.
LundgaardD.EtterM. (2023). Everyday talk on Twitter: Informal deliberation about (ir-)responsible business conduct in social media arenas. Business & Society, 62(6), 1201–1247.
52.
MalmströmM.VoitkaneA.JohanssonJ.WincentJ. (2020). What do they think and what do they say? Gender bias, entrepreneurial attitude in writing and venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, e00154.
53.
MassaroS.DroverW.CerfM. (2020). Founder Gender and Investor Pitch Assessments: An fMRI Multivariate Pattern Analysis Investigation. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2020, No. 1, p. 21497). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
54.
McDonaldR.GaoC. (2019). Pivoting isn’t enough? Managing strategic reorientation in new ventures. Organization Science, 30(6), 1289–1318.
McManusM. J. (2017). Women’s business ownership: Data from the 2012 Survey of Business Owners. Office of Advocacy.
57.
McMullenJ. S.ShepherdD. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
58.
McSweeneyJ. J.McSweeneyK. T.WebbJ. W.DeversC. E. (2022). The right touch of pitch assertiveness: Examining entrepreneurs’ gender and project category fit in crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(4), 106223.
59.
MuiR.ParkerO.TitusV.Jr. (2022). Merit versus maleness: How strategic positioning can mitigate external gender bias. Business Horizons, 65(4), 427–436.
60.
OliverA. G.PfarrerM. D.NevilleF. (2022). Grand challenges and female leaders: An exploration of relational leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. Business & Society, 63, 954–987.
61.
ParkerO. N.GongK.MuiR. (2023). Reputation belongs in more strategic decision models (and some data to measure it). Strategic Organization, 21(4), 975–986.
62.
ParkerO. N.MuiR.TitusV.Jr. (2020). Unwelcome voices: The gender bias-mitigating potential of unconventionality. Strategic Management Journal, 41(4), 738–757.
63.
PatelP. C.WolfeM. T. (2021). In the eye of the beholder? The returns to beauty and IQ for the self-employed. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 15(4), 487–525.
64.
PathakS. (2021). Contextualizing well-being for entrepreneurship. Business & Society, 60(8), 1987–2025.
65.
PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L.JordanK.BlackburnK. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. The University of Texas at Austin.
66.
PetkovaA. (2012). From the ground up: Building young firms’ reputations. Oxford University Press.
67.
PistilliL.PaccagniniA.BreschiS.MalerbaF. (2023). Gender bias in entrepreneurship: What is the role of the founders’ entrepreneurial background?Journal of Business Ethics, 187(2), 325–346.
68.
RoccaprioreA.PollockT. (2023). I don’t need a degree, I’ve got abs: Influencer warmth and competence, communication mode, and stakeholder engagement on social media. Academy of Management Journal, 66(3), 979–1006.
69.
SætreA. S.Van de VenA. (2021). Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684–701.
70.
SchwabA.StarbuckW. H. (2017). A call for openness in research reporting: How to turn covert practices into helpful tools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1), 125–141.
71.
SeignerB. D. C.MilanovH.LundmarkE.ShepherdD. A. (2023). Tweeting like Elon? Provocative language, new-venture status, and audience engagement on social media. Journal of Business Venturing, 38(2), 106282.
72.
ShenW.KigerT. B.DaviesS. E.RaschR. L.SimonK. M.OnesD. S. (2011). Samples in applied psychology: Over a decade of research in review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1055–1064.
73.
SmithB.ViceiszaA. (2018). Bite me! ABC’s Shark Tank as a path to entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 50, 463–479.
74.
TonevaY.HeilmanM. E.PierreG. (2020). Choice or circumstance: When are women penalized for their success?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(11), 651–659.
75.
TrusovM.BucklinR. E.PauwelsK. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an Internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90–102.
76.
WangX.RegerR. K.PfarrerM. (2021). Faster, hotter, and more Linked In: Managing social disapproval in the social media era. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 275–298.
WesemannH.WincentJ. (2021). A whole new world: Counterintuitive crowdfunding insights for female founders. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 15, e00235.
79.
WheelerA. R.ShanineK. K.LeonM. R.WhitmanM. V. (2014). Student-recruited samples in organizational research: A review, analysis, and guidelines for future research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 1–26.
80.
WilliamsD. W.WoodM. S.MitchellJ. R.UrbigD. (2019). Applying experimental methods to advance entrepreneurship research: On the need for and publication of experiments. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 215–223.
81.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2003). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. South-Western College Publications.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
