Getting in the Door vs. Winning It All: How Gendered Outcomes Change Across Evaluation Stages

• In Event: Organizational Mechanisms of Inequality in Work and Entrepreneurship

Abstract

Organizational evaluation processes commonly take multistage formats. We integrate and extend research on evaluations, status, and inequality by theorizing how gendered outcomes can vary between stages within a single, unified evaluation process—what we term “stakes‑driven gender inequality.” Our theoretical framework centers on a ubiquitous feature of organizational multistage evaluation processes that is missing from prior theoretical accounts: escalating stakes across stages via increasingly binding commitments and rising cost of wrong selections. We conceptualize two stylized stages within one evaluation process: a shortlisting stage (where selected candidates are re-assessed in a later stage) and a winners stage (where final, binding selections are made). Using data from a large multistage startup competition, we test our theory and find that female-led startups are 6.2 percentage points (18.7%) more likely to be selected in the shortlisting stage, but 18.9 percentage points (30.7%) less likely to be selected in the winners stage. Mechanism tests in the shortlisting stage are most consistent with female-led startups being assessed as higher quality, whereas in the winners stage, we find evidence consistent with gendered performance expectations and evaluator risk aversion. Centering stakes within a unified evaluation process helps reconcile mixed findings from single-stage studies and clarifies that conclusions about gender inequality in outcomes depend on where one looks in the full evaluation process.

Authors

• Tristan L. Botelho, Yale University

• Ethan J Poskanzer