Effect of female management on firm performance (dependent variable: firm growth)
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS model ASO | OLS model innov. startups | OLS model ASO and innov. startups | IV model ASO and innov. startups | |
| Female management | −1.870*** | 0.340 | 0.235 | 72.644** |
| (0.476) | (0.537) | (0.538) | (33.614) | |
| Spin-off | −0.396 | −11.079** | ||
| (0.385) | (5.385) | |||
| Female management × Spinoff | −1.590** | −73.627** | ||
| (0.702) | (33.469) | |||
| Age (log) | −2.906*** | −2.623*** | −2.854*** | −3.278*** |
| (0.393) | (0.217) | (0.188) | (0.316) | |
| Size | −0.154 | −0.963*** | −0.673*** | −0.550*** |
| (0.171) | (0.147) | (0.110) | (0.142) | |
| Tangibility | −128.926*** | −0.253 | −0.174 | −0.812 |
| (48.704) | (1.002) | (0.989) | (1.499) | |
| Profitability | −0.404 | −5.584*** | −2.767*** | −3.590*** |
| (0.620) | (0.919) | (0.536) | (0.696) | |
| Debt | −0.101 | 0.331*** | 0.186*** | −0.011 |
| (0.067) | (0.040) | (0.036) | (0.106) | |
| Cash Holdings | 19.887 | 4.063*** | 3.695*** | 2.427* |
| (18.856) | (0.950) | (0.935) | (1.315) | |
| Foreign management | 1.731 | −0.104 | 2.526** | 1.652 |
| (1.125) | (0.634) | (1.028) | (1.133) | |
| Venture Capital | 1.931 | −1.039* | −0.323 | −0.745 |
| (2.228) | (0.614) | (0.569) | (0.729) | |
| R2 | 0.021 | 0.057 | 0.040 | |
| Observations | 10,386 | 19,272 | 29,658 | 29,658 |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS model | OLS model innov. startups | OLS model | IV model | |
| Female management | −1.870*** | 0.340 | 0.235 | 72.644** |
| (0.476) | (0.537) | (0.538) | (33.614) | |
| Spin-off | −0.396 | −11.079** | ||
| (0.385) | (5.385) | |||
| Female management × Spinoff | −1.590** | −73.627** | ||
| (0.702) | (33.469) | |||
| Age (log) | −2.906*** | −2.623*** | −2.854*** | −3.278*** |
| (0.393) | (0.217) | (0.188) | (0.316) | |
| Size | −0.154 | −0.963*** | −0.673*** | −0.550*** |
| (0.171) | (0.147) | (0.110) | (0.142) | |
| Tangibility | −128.926*** | −0.253 | −0.174 | −0.812 |
| (48.704) | (1.002) | (0.989) | (1.499) | |
| Profitability | −0.404 | −5.584*** | −2.767*** | −3.590*** |
| (0.620) | (0.919) | (0.536) | (0.696) | |
| Debt | −0.101 | 0.331*** | 0.186*** | −0.011 |
| (0.067) | (0.040) | (0.036) | (0.106) | |
| Cash Holdings | 19.887 | 4.063*** | 3.695*** | 2.427* |
| (18.856) | (0.950) | (0.935) | (1.315) | |
| Foreign management | 1.731 | −0.104 | 2.526** | 1.652 |
| (1.125) | (0.634) | (1.028) | (1.133) | |
| Venture Capital | 1.931 | −1.039* | −0.323 | −0.745 |
| (2.228) | (0.614) | (0.569) | (0.729) | |
| 0.021 | 0.057 | 0.040 | ||
| Observations | 10,386 | 19,272 | 29,658 | 29,658 |
Note(s): Results in columns (1), (2) and (3) are based on pooled regressions. Year- and industry-fixed effects are included. Although the Durbin–Wu–Hausman endogeneity test fails to reject the null hypothesis of exogeneity for the variable Female management, and the RIR test suggests a very low probability that our results are affected by endogeneity, we also report the IV estimates in column (4), using the industry-level average of female managers as an instrument, with results perfectly in line with column (3). Robust standard errors are reported in brackets. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.