We reassess whether and to what degree the hiring, development, and promotion decisions of S&P 500 companies has led to misrepresentation of and bias against their minority executives. Instead of the US population benchmark that has conventionally been used to measure misrepresentation, and from such misrepresentation attribute the presence and magnitude of racial bias and discrimination, we measure misrepresentation in US executives using the benchmark of the racial/ethnic densities (RAEDs) of their college cohort peers. Our key result is that the differences between US executive RAEDs and the RAEDs of their college peers are far smaller than those found using the US population, typically by an order of magnitude or more.
What can the corporate response to George Floyd’s murder teach us about today’s diversity challenges? Discover how meaningful actions on racial equity affected market valuations, through research from UNC Kenan-Flagler's Daniela De la Parra.
In a continuing effort to examine the business sector's contributions to inclusive economic growth, the second annual Conference on Market-Based Solutions for Reducing Wealth Inequality will bring top researchers and private sector representatives to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on April 25-26.
In a series of very influential studies, McKinsey (2015; 2018; 2020; 2023) reports finding statistically significant positive relations between the industry-adjusted earnings before interest and taxes margins of global McKinsey-chosen sets of large public firms and the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives. However, when we revisit McKinsey’s tests using data for firms in the publicly observable S&P 500® as of 12/31/2019, we do not find statistically significant relations between McKinsey’s inverse normalized Herfindahl-Hirschman measures of executive racial/ethnic diversity at mid-2020 and either industry-adjusted earnings before interest and taxes margin or industry-adjusted sales growth, gross margin, return on assets, return on equity, and total shareholder return over the prior five years 2015–2019.
Universal childcare reform implemented in Quebec, Canada, in the late 1990s boosted the careers and earnings of new mothers and produced positive outcomes for some companies as well.
Reactions from Wall Street and Main Street to how a company addresses – or doesn’t address – issues of gender inequality and sexual harassment affect social media sentiment, brand equity and market value, new research shows.
This work examines the effects on worker psychological well-being and productivity of highly publicized negative identity-related societal events, such as the 2020 murder of George Floyd, mass shootings like the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting that targeted LGBTQ+ individuals, and the 2021 Atlanta area Spa shootings that targeted individuals of Asian descent.
Pay transparency policies are increasingly popular among governments in the United States and around the world.
We investigate the stock market reactions to the announcements of Black CEO and top management team (TMT) appointments in light of two conflicting studies that advance competing and opposite theories.
Angelica Leigh, assistant professor of management and organizations at Duke University Fuqua School of Business and 2023 Kenan Institute Distinguished Fellow, defines the characteristics of mega-threats and their potential effects on the workplace.
Prior research suggests that female negotiators often obtain worse outcomes than male negotiators. The current research examines whether this pattern extends to the large subset of men and women who identify as gays and lesbians. In particular, we interweave scholarship on gender stereotypes with work on intersectionality and MOSAIC theory to develop a theoretical model that anticipates how male and female negotiators will be treated at the bargaining table based on whether they are perceived to be heterosexual or homosexual. This model predicts that homosexual women, like heterosexual men, will receive more beneficial negotiation offers and outcomes than heterosexual women and homosexual men.
Prior research suggests that female negotiators often obtain worse outcomes than male negotiators. The current research examines whether this pattern extends to the large subset of men and women who identify as gays and lesbians. In particular, we interweave scholarship on gender stereotypes with work on intersectionality and MOSAIC theory to develop a theoretical model that anticipates how male and female negotiators will be treated at the bargaining table based on whether they are perceived to be heterosexual or homosexual.