01 / Snap judgement · One class vote
Sarah is...
S
THE MANAGEMENT CASE
Sarah · Project manager
Sarah challenged a senior colleague's plan, cut short a prolonged debate and made the final call. The project finished ahead of schedule. Two colleagues later said their views had been brushed aside.
Which description fits best? Choose one.
A
DecisiveTook responsibility when a decision was needed.
0
B
DemandingGets results, but needs more team buy-in.
0
C
ControllingOverrode colleagues to get her way.
0
D
DivisiveStrong delivery may hide a teamwork problem.
0
Instructor controls
A difficult first impression.
Ask students to choose one interpretation. Add their votes using the counters. Only one poll is needed.
Sarah delivered a good result, but some colleagues felt unheard. Which interpretation would you use in a management appraisal?
A + B · Favourable / mixed
0
C + D · Critical
0
Total responses: 0. Your class's critical share will influence Firm B's subjective screening rule.
Neither C nor D is automatically biased. This is a judgement poll, not a diagnostic test of unconscious bias.
02 / Reveal · Sarah today, Sam in a previous cohort
Same behaviour. Different descriptions?
A previous cohort evaluated Sam using the same scenario. Compare those previously collected responses with today’s ratings of Sarah.
Sarah · your classSam · previous cohort
Earlier cohort: Sam
A 60% · B 33% · C 4% · D 3%. That is 93% A+B, and just 7% C+D.What can we conclude?
A difference could reflect gender framing, or cohort differences. These were not randomly assigned groups, so the comparison is suggestive, not proof.Compare the critical interpretations
From judgement to hiring rules.
Your class · Sarah C+D
Previous cohort · Sam C+D
7%
Enter the class's votes to see how subjective evaluation could influence screening.
The relevant research
Eagly & Karau (2002): Leadership expectations can conflict with gender stereotypes. Role congruity theory
Heilman & Okimoto (2007): Successful women may face interpersonal penalties in male-typed roles. Experimental evidence
Brescoll (2011): Evaluations of powerful, outspoken leaders can differ by gender. Study details
Research provides stronger experimental evidence of gendered evaluations. Comparing different cohorts cannot isolate gender as the cause. Firm B uses today’s C+D share as an illustrative screening hurdle.
03 / Nine-year competitive experiment
Merit wins. Then the old network fights back.
YEAR 1 / 9
A · talent only
B · class-influenced
C · insider preference
D · male-only leadership
Year 1. Firm A finds the most capable managers. Advance to see what happens when familiar insider networks are rewarded.
1–3: Talent advantage4: Staff shock5: Client shock6–9: Insider advantage persists
Four firms, same market · different promotion norms
Early years: Firm A leads by selecting the strongest available candidates.
What changes when society enters the firm?
Firm A · cooperation shock
0
staff and client response
Firm D · insider synergy
0
trusted insiders / cooperation
The starting advantage comes from talent. The later advantage comes from how existing colleagues and clients behave, not from managerial ability.
04 / Mechanism · Follow the advantage
How can excluding women become the easy option?
The simulation does not give men greater managerial ability. It assumes an established male senior-management network whose members and clients find familiar insiders easier to work with.
01 · SOCIETY
Expectations
Leadership authority is judged through gendered assumptions.
02 · NETWORK
Insiders
Existing senior men share information, referrals and trust.
03 · SHOCK
Cooperation
A capable woman manager faces weaker support and some customer resistance.
04 · RESPONSE
Promotion
Firms select “safe fits” and reproduce the male-dominated network.
Why A initially wins
Choosing the best candidate expands the talent pool and avoids wasting managerial ability. Before the social shock, A leads.Why D can later win
Under the assumed biased environment, insider support and client acceptance can outweigh D's lost access to talent.Organisational adaptation: the firm may reproduce social exclusion because the surrounding network makes familiar appointments seem easier and less costly. That is a conditional advantage created by institutions, not a natural benefit of male-only teams.
Evidence & model boundaries
Networks can shape promotion
Homophily means people tend to form ties with similar others. If senior networks are male-dominated, referrals can favour men even without an explicit rule banning women.
McPherson et al. (2001): Homophily in social networks
Fernandez & Rubineau (2019): Recruitment networks and the glass ceiling
Model assumption: the evidence supports network mechanisms, not these scores. Different social conditions can reverse the result.
The uncomfortable result
Biased cooperation and client preferences can make exclusion privately attractive. Firms learn to call the effect “synergy” or “fit”.