Connect vs conquer? CEO gender and implicit motives

Abstract

PurposeThis study examined gender differences in CEOs' expression of implicit achievement, power and affiliation motivation. Building on the role congruity account of sex differences and similarities in motivation and existing literature on implicit motives, the study tested whether female CEOs would express higher affiliation motivation than male CEOs and similar levels of achievement motivation. In addition, gender differences in power motivation were explored.Design/methodology/approachThe study used propensity score matching to generate a comparable sample of male and female CEOs from publicly traded companies. Subsequently, the authors content-coded CEO letters from annual reports using Winter's (1994) manual for scoring motive imagery in running text.FindingsOverall, CEOs expressed more achievement and power motivation than affiliation motivation. Comparisons between male and female CEOs showed that female CEOs expressed lower power and higher affiliation motivation than male CEOs.Research limitations/implicationsBy integrating implicit motive theory with social role theory and the role congruity account of motivation, this study provides a theoretical framework and novel demonstration that understanding social roles and gender roles can lend insights into motive expression by CEOs.Originality/valueThe study uses established theory and a validated scoring method in a novel way by analyzing implicit motives from CEO letters, a critical communication channel in the CEO–shareholder relationship. In doing so, this study adopts a sociocultural perspective. Informed by the role congruity account of motivation, the study demonstrates the importance of social roles and gender roles for motivational displays.

Stuck in short-term, daily operations, or not?: Unraveling SME’s long-term orientation

“…More specifically, the positive and significant relation between nAchievement and LTO indicates that nAchievement, which is a deeply rooted entrepreneurial motive, plays an essential role in long-term business behavior of SMEs, as such, supporting McClelland's (1965) and Pang's (2010) findings. Our findings also support the idea that the perception of the institutional context is not only related to the LTO of an SME, but also that these institutional perceptions interact and channel the impact of implicit needs on behavior, in our case, LTO (Brueckner et al, 2021;Duncan & Peterson, 2010).…”

“…Our findings also support the idea that the perception of the institutional context interacts and channels the impact of implicit needs on behavior (Brueckner et al, 2021;Duncan & Peterson, 2010). We theorize and empirically show that LTO is a complex firmlevel behavior which is related to deeply rooted individual characteristics (i.e.…”

“…Second, we include PIES because not only the institutional context itself sets norms and standards of behavior that reinforces certain behaviors and ways of thinking (Valdez & Richardson, 2013), also the way in which these contextual norms and standards are perceived by the individual impacts entrepreneurial behavior, including LTO (Brueckner et al, 2021;Duncan & Peterson, 2010). Also, perceptions interact with and channel the impact of a person's implicit needs on behavior (Kehr, 2004).…”

The double-edged sword of manager caring behavior: Implications for employee wellbeing.

“…For instance, leaders need to set reasonable expectations with respect to how much is expected of managers to care for employees. Especially during trying times, when managers are increasingly expected to support employees (Brueckner et al, 2020), leaders should make their expectations clear. Managers should be trained on how to effectively support employees, and when to direct employees to other sources of support, such as employee assistance programs, so they are not “going it alone.” HR managers and senior leaders should be reminded that caring for employees may require significant personal resources, and they should proactively monitor manager workload to support both manager and employee wellbeing.…”

“…For example, research could examine managers’ motives (i.e., achievement, power, and affiliation; McClelland et al, 1989) for displaying caring behaviors. Since leaders often express weaker affiliation motives (which often underlie actions that resemble care for targeted others; Lang et al, 2012) as it challenges their neutrality (Brueckner et al, 2020) and is negatively related to income growth (Apers et al, 2019), managers who have low affiliation motives might avoid caring for employees. This could hinder employee wellbeing because it contrasts with employees’ desire for managers to engage in affiliative behaviors (Lang et al, 2012).…”