Fig. 1 Study 1 female founding CEO disadvantage by industry type. Figure reflects average raw funding amounts as U.S. dollars in millions; P values reflect natural log of funds raised “ln funding” to account for potential skewness (38). Figure indicates that female founding CEOs raise significantly less than male founding CEOs when serving male- but not female-dominated industries. See Fig. 2 for additional comparisons.
Fig. 2 Study 1 lack of fit disadvantage by founding CEO gender. Figure reflects natural log of funds raised (ln funding); it indicates that female founding CEOs raise significantly less funding when catering to male-dominated industries that represent a lack of fit, while male founding CEOs do not raise significantly less funding when catering to female-dominated industries that are a lack of fit for them.
Fig. 3 Study 2 funding allocation comparisons by founding CEO type. Figure reflects average raw funding allocations based on $400,000 cap across all four conditions. It indicates that female founding CEOs are allocated significantly lower amounts of ln funding when catering to lack of fit male-dominated (versus female-dominated) industries, while male founding CEOs receive similar amounts regardless of industry fit. Note that female founding CEOs are also allocated significantly less than male founding CEOs for lack of fit (P < 0.001), while female founding CEOs do not receive significantly more than male founding CEOs for fit.
Fig. 4 Study 2 perceived fit differences by industry served. Perceived fit values reflect 1 to 7 rating scale measure responses provided by investors serving as experimental participants. Female founding CEOs catering to male-dominated (versus female-dominated) industries conveyed a significantly lower sense of venture-CEO fit, while perceived venture-CEO fit did not differ by industry served for male founding CEOs.
- Table 1 Study 1 summary statistics.
Study 1 summary statistics..
Venture funding raised average $16,739,338 Male-led venture funding average $18,509,448 Female-led venture funding average $7,996,069 Operating count 214 Closed count 105 Acquired count 72 IPO count 1 SF launch count 201 NY launch count 191 Male founding CEO count 326 Female founding CEO count 66 TCD finalist distinction count 115 - Table 2 Study 1 descriptive statistics and correlations.
Study 1 descriptive statistics and correlations.. Ln funding (logged aggregate funds raised); BLS percentage (percentage women employed); founder gender (female founding CEO = 1); founder age category (0 to 2); launch location (0, 1); launch year (2010 to 2018); venture quality (0, 1); venture industry (1 to 12); venture “operate” operating status (0, 1). †P < 0.10, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.
M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Ln funding 12.64 5.73 −0.02 −0.24*** 0.11* 0.08 0.01 0.21*** 0.05 0.28*** 2 BLS percentage 44.32 17.85 0.27*** 0.02 0.01 0.01 −0.12* −0.05 −0.01 3 Founder gender 0.17 0.37 0.04 0.04 0.22*** −0.04 0.01 0.03 4 Founder age 0.84 0.70 0.16** −0.06 −0.00 0.08 0.11* 5 Launch location 0.51 0.50 0.06 0.00 0.17*** 0.09† 6 Launch year 2013 2.35 0.02 0.09† 0.29*** 7 Venture quality 0.29 0.46 0.04 0.07 8 Venture industry 7.84 3.65 0.10* 9 Venture operate 0.73 0.44 - Table 3 Study 2 descriptive statistics and correlations.
Founder “Entrep” gender, industry gender dominance, and investor gender (female = 1). Perceived fit (1 to 7 rating scale). Investor age (number of years old). Investor years of experience “Investor exper” (coded as 1 to 12, with 12 indicating “10+ years”). Investor accreditation status “Investor accred” (1 if accredited). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.
M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Condition 2.50 1.12 0.24*** 0.20*** 0.00 0.45*** 0.12** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Ln funding 10.86 2.52 0.47*** −0.10* 0.17*** 0.31*** −0.05 −0.02 −0.02 0.10* 3 Ln valuation 12.54 3.70 −0.13** 0.09* 0.17*** −0.02 −0.06 −0.04 −0.10* 4 Entrep gender 0.50 0.50 0.00 −0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 Industry gender 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 Perceived fit 5.23 1.21 −0.14** −0.28*** −0.22*** 0.33*** 7 Investor gender 0.32 0.47 0.03 0.09* −0.23*** 8 Investor age 51.63 16.21 0.58*** −0.42*** 9 Investor exper 9.01 3.19 −0.27*** 10 Investor accred 0.45 0.50 - Table 4 Study 1 regression results.
***P < 0.001. Robust standard errors clustered by venture in parentheses.
Effect on ln
funding:Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Founding CEO
gender−3.75*** −12.44*** −10.16*** Female = 1 (0.75) (2.05) (1.97) Industry gender
dominance−0.03 −0.01 Percentage
women
employed(0.02) (0.02) Founder *
Industry0.16*** 0.12*** Gender
interaction(0.04) (0.04) Founding CEO
age0.57 (0.38) Venture launch location 0.54 (0.54) Venture age 0.05 (0.12) Venture quality 2.24*** (0.58) Venture industry 0.01 (0.07) Venture
operating
status3.17*** (0.63) Intercept 13.27*** 14.33*** 9.42*** (0.31) (0.84) (1.40) Multiple R2 0.06 0.11 0.21 Adjusted R2 0.06 0.10 0.20 F statistic 24.87*** 15.63*** 11.62*** - Table 5 Study 2 linear mixed effects results.
†P < 0.10, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001. Standard errors in parentheses.
Effect on Ln funding Ln valuation Perceived fit Founding CEO
gender−1.42*** −2.34*** −0.37*** Female = 1 (0.30) (0.35) (0.11) Industry gender
dominance−0.06 −0.68† −0.08 Female
dominated = 1(0.30) (0.35) (0.11) Entrepreneur *
Industry1.83*** 2.68*** 0.48** Gender
interaction(0.43) (0.50) (0.15) Investor gender −0.12 −0.42 −0.19 Female = 1 (0.24) (0.51) (0.16) Investor age 0.00 −0.03 −0.01† (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) Investor years of
experience−0.01 −0.01 −0.03 (0.04) (0.09) (0.03) Investor
accreditation0.52* −1.20* 0.58*** (0.24) (0.52) (0.17) Intercept 10.78*** 15.56*** 5.91*** (0.52) (1.06) (0.34) Marginal R2 0.08 0.08 0.16 Sample size 130 130 130 - Table 6 Study 2 bootstrapped multiple mediation analyses.
R package mediation models with 10,000 bootstrapped samples, adjusted for investor gender, age, years of investing experience, and accreditation status. **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001. DV, dependent variables of logged funding and logged valuation; IV, independent variable of experimental condition.
Study 2 model outcome Effect of IV on
mediatorEffect of mediator on
DVIndirect effect of
mediator95% CI lower bound 95% CI upper bound LnFunding 0.354** 0.653*** 0.231*** 0.11 0.37 LnValuation 0.974*** 0.347*** 0.17 0.55
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/6/48/eabd7664/DC1
Additional Files
Supplementary Materials
Evidence that investors penalize female founders for lack of industry fit
Dana Kanze, Mark A. Conley, Tyler G. Okimoto, Damon J. Phillips, Jennifer Merluzzi
This PDF file includes:
- Supplementary text
- Figs. S1 to S3
- References
Files in this Data Supplement:
