The prudent entrepreneurs: women and public sector innovation

Abstract

Despite the large literature on gender differences in politics, there have been relatively few empirical studies testing the effects of gender in public administration. This paper examines how male and female public managers show attitudinal differences toward innovation in the public sector. We hypothesize that male and female managers differ in three aspects. Firstly, female managers are more result-oriented than rule-following, and more oriented toward societal interests. Secondly, female public managers are more open to new ideas and creativity, and more willing to challenge the status quo. Yet, thirdly, female leaders are less eager to take risks when would-be innovations may put their organizations in peril. Thus, we argue that female managers are more prudent and entrepreneurial than their male counterparts. We test these hypotheses using a data set of 5,909 senior public managers from 20 European countries. The results of multilevel model analysis find statistically significant gender differences in attitudes toward innovation. Despite the small size of gender impacts, our findings challenge prevailing stereotypes on women's entrepreneurial attitudes.

Bureaucratic structures and organizational commitment: findings from a comparative study of 20 European countries

“…In particular, the major constraints limiting cross-national studies are lack of data and resources for an extensive data collection process, and more importantly the barriers in getting access to public managers across countries (Chordiya, Sabharwal, and Goodman 2017). In particular, while several studies examine cross-national variation in public employees' attitudes and values (Esteve et al 2017;Fernández-Gutiérrez and Van de Walle 2019;Lapuente and Suzuki 2017;Jeannot, Van de Walle, and Hammerschmid 2018), none of the studies assess the effect of bureaucratic structure on commitment. 3 Thus, despite the large volume of research on organizational commitment and Weberian bureaucracy, the two concepts have seldom been examined together.…”

Exclusion or interests? Why females in elected office reduce petty and grand corruption

“…Thus, while women on average may be more risk‐averse than men, elite women, and perhaps in particular women that attain positions of power in male‐dominated sectors, may in fact be less risk‐averse than average. For example, a large‐scale comparative study on innovation and entrepreneurship, based on responses by 5,909 senior public managers from 20 countries, did not display significant gender differences relating to risk‐taking/risk‐aversion (Lapuente & Suzuki ), and studies show that while there can be robust gender differences in studies using a representative sample of women at large, elite women may have very similar perceptions regarding future risks and threats as men (Djerf‐Pierre & Wängnerud ). In addition, evidence shows that it could, in certain settings, be very risky to mobilise against corruption since it tends to sometimes create very powerful enemies .…”

The effect of female presence on corporate boards of directors on the value relevance of accounting amounts: empirical evidence from the European Union

“…As to the contribution to existing knowledge, this paper complements findings of scholars who have investigated the relationship between female presence and other dimensions of accounting quality (Garcia-Sanchez et al, 2017) and of those who have found the benefits of an increase in female findings offer an additional support to the European Union Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 according to which an increase in women's participation in the labor market has a strong, positive impact on the whole economy. (Krauss & Kroeber, 2020) or in public administration (Lapuente & Suzuki, 2020). In addition, findings of this paper participate into the debate regarding the ability of female presence on corporate boards to affect value relevance of accounting amounts.…”