Search

Despite concerted efforts to enforce ethical standards, transgressions continue to plague US corporations. This paper investigates whether the way in which an organization pursues its goals can influence ethical violations, manifested as involvement in discrimination. We test this hypothesis among franchises, which employ a considerable amount of low-income workers adversely affected by discrimination. Drawing upon Regulatory Mode Theory, we perform a linguistic analysis of franchise mission statements to determine their degree of locomotion and assessment language. EEOC archival data for the past decade reveals that regulatory mode predicts franchise involvement in discrimination. Discriminatory behavior is associated with franchises whose mission statements motivate employees to embrace urgent action (locomotion mode) over thoughtful consideration (assessment mode). Two experiments demonstrate that participants exposed to high locomotion mission statements tend to disregard ethical standards due to their need for expediency, making significantly more discriminatory managerial decisions than those exposed to high assessment mission statements.

Are female founders penalized when raising funds for their ventures based on industry served? Across an observational study conducted on ventures seeking funding (*N*=392) and an experimental study conducted on investors allocating venture funding (*N*=130), we find significant evidence for a “lack of fit” effect: First, we document that female-led ventures receive significantly less funding at significantly lower valuations while retaining significantly smaller equity amounts than male-led ventures. Next, we demonstrate that female founders of ventures catering to male-dominated industries receive significantly less funding at significantly lower valuations with significantly reduced equity retention than female founders of ventures catering to female-dominated industries, while male founders attain similar funding outcomes regardless of the gender dominance of the industry to which they cater. Lastly, we confirm this is because investors perceive significantly lower degrees of fit between founding CEO and venture for female-led ventures catering to male- as opposed to female-dominated industries (with no fit differences for male-led ventures across industries). Degree of investor sophistication emerges as a potential attenuating factor, appearing to help reduce gender bias from perceived lack of fit.

Objective Recent debate regarding the use of race-adjusted normative data (RAND) in the neuropsychological evaluation of former National Football League (NFL) players has sparked intrigue. This pilot study explored the use of RAND in a community-based sample of cognitively normal Black and White NFL retirees. Methods Cognitively normal Black (n = 20) and White (n = 20) NFL retirees were selected to be similar in age and education from a larger community sample of retired athletes. All participants underwent consensus neurological diagnosis and standard tests of memory, executive functioning, and language. Five tests utilized Heaton RAND (TMT A and B; FAS, Animal fluency, BNT) and four used age-and education- adjusted manual norms (RCFT, CVLT-II, WAIS-IV Coding and Digit Span). Independent samples t-tests compared raw and normative scores between Black and White retirees. ANCOVA was also used that included estimated IQ and head-injury exposure. Results Raw score differences (p Conclusions The use of RAND raises complex issues. In this pilot sample of Black and White NFL retirees of similar age and education, few differences were seen, and these were largely attenuated using specialized norms and/or adjustment for estimated global cognitive ability. Potential demographic and environmental influences on test scores require examination in similar populations.

Male entrepreneurs are known to raise higher levels of funding than their female counterparts, but the underlying mechanism for this funding disparity remains contested. Drawing upon regulatory focus theory, we propose that the gap originates with a gender bias in the questions that investors pose to entrepreneurs. A field study conducted on question-and-answer interactions at TechCrunch Disrupt New York City during 2010 through 2016 reveals that investors tend to ask male entrepreneurs promotion-focused questions and female entrepreneurs prevention-focused questions, and that entrepreneurs tend to respond with matching regulatory focus. This distinction in the regulatory focus of investor questions and entrepreneur responses results in divergent funding outcomes for entrepreneurs whereby those asked promotion-focused questions raise significantly higher amounts of funding than those asked prevention-focused questions. We demonstrate that every additional prevention-focused question significantly hinders the entrepreneur’s ability to raise capital, fully mediating gender’s effect on funding. By experimentally testing an intervention, we find that entrepreneurs can significantly increase funding for their startups when responding to prevention-focused questions with promotion-focused answers. As we offer evidence regarding tactics that can be employed to diminish the gender disadvantage in funding outcomes, this study has practical as well as theoretical implications for entrepreneurship.