Advisor gender and advice justification in advice taking

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify under what circumstances advisor gender and advice justification influence advice taking by managers. Design/methodology/approach The authors designed a quasirational managerial decision experiment with both analytic and intuitive cues. The design was a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial, in which gender (male/female) and advice justification (intuitive/analytic) were crossed. The experiment involved two independent samples, taken from Amazon Mechanical Turk workers and Brazilian professionals. Findings Results suggest that, in general, analytic justification is more valued than intuitive justification. The findings also infer that depending on the advisees’ sample and providing that advice justification is analytic, quasirational scenarios seem to favor male advisors (MTurk sample) or both male and female advisors with “male values” (professional sample), as analysis is traditionally considered a “male value.” Practical implications Analytic justification will likely lead to more advice utilization in quasirational managerial situations, as it may act as a safeguard for the accuracy of the offered advice. Social implications The results might signal an ongoing, but slow, process leading to the mitigation of gender stereotypes, considering that the male gender stereotype was active in the MTurk sample, but not in the professional one. Originality/value This study contributes to the advice-taking research field by showing the interplay between advisor gender and advice justification in a quasirational managerial decision setting with both analytic and intuitive cues. In advice-taking literature, observations are usually collected from students. However, as this study focused on managerial decisions, the authors collected independent samples from MTurk workers and Brazilian professionals.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ribeiro,Vinicius Farias, Hilal,Adriana Victoria Garibaldi de, Avila,Marcos Gonçalves
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Universidade de São Paulo 2020
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2531-04882020000100004
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S2531-04882020000100004
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S2531-048820200001000042020-05-11Advisor gender and advice justification in advice takingRibeiro,Vinicius FariasHilal,Adriana Victoria Garibaldi deAvila,Marcos Gonçalves Decision-making Analysis and intuition Advisor gender Advice justification Advice taking Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify under what circumstances advisor gender and advice justification influence advice taking by managers. Design/methodology/approach The authors designed a quasirational managerial decision experiment with both analytic and intuitive cues. The design was a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial, in which gender (male/female) and advice justification (intuitive/analytic) were crossed. The experiment involved two independent samples, taken from Amazon Mechanical Turk workers and Brazilian professionals. Findings Results suggest that, in general, analytic justification is more valued than intuitive justification. The findings also infer that depending on the advisees’ sample and providing that advice justification is analytic, quasirational scenarios seem to favor male advisors (MTurk sample) or both male and female advisors with “male values” (professional sample), as analysis is traditionally considered a “male value.” Practical implications Analytic justification will likely lead to more advice utilization in quasirational managerial situations, as it may act as a safeguard for the accuracy of the offered advice. Social implications The results might signal an ongoing, but slow, process leading to the mitigation of gender stereotypes, considering that the male gender stereotype was active in the MTurk sample, but not in the professional one. Originality/value This study contributes to the advice-taking research field by showing the interplay between advisor gender and advice justification in a quasirational managerial decision setting with both analytic and intuitive cues. In advice-taking literature, observations are usually collected from students. However, as this study focused on managerial decisions, the authors collected independent samples from MTurk workers and Brazilian professionals.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessUniversidade de São PauloRAUSP Management Journal v.55 n.1 20202020-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2531-04882020000100004en10.1108/rausp-08-2018-0068
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Ribeiro,Vinicius Farias
Hilal,Adriana Victoria Garibaldi de
Avila,Marcos Gonçalves
spellingShingle Ribeiro,Vinicius Farias
Hilal,Adriana Victoria Garibaldi de
Avila,Marcos Gonçalves
Advisor gender and advice justification in advice taking
author_facet Ribeiro,Vinicius Farias
Hilal,Adriana Victoria Garibaldi de
Avila,Marcos Gonçalves
author_sort Ribeiro,Vinicius Farias
title Advisor gender and advice justification in advice taking
title_short Advisor gender and advice justification in advice taking
title_full Advisor gender and advice justification in advice taking
title_fullStr Advisor gender and advice justification in advice taking
title_full_unstemmed Advisor gender and advice justification in advice taking
title_sort advisor gender and advice justification in advice taking
description Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify under what circumstances advisor gender and advice justification influence advice taking by managers. Design/methodology/approach The authors designed a quasirational managerial decision experiment with both analytic and intuitive cues. The design was a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial, in which gender (male/female) and advice justification (intuitive/analytic) were crossed. The experiment involved two independent samples, taken from Amazon Mechanical Turk workers and Brazilian professionals. Findings Results suggest that, in general, analytic justification is more valued than intuitive justification. The findings also infer that depending on the advisees’ sample and providing that advice justification is analytic, quasirational scenarios seem to favor male advisors (MTurk sample) or both male and female advisors with “male values” (professional sample), as analysis is traditionally considered a “male value.” Practical implications Analytic justification will likely lead to more advice utilization in quasirational managerial situations, as it may act as a safeguard for the accuracy of the offered advice. Social implications The results might signal an ongoing, but slow, process leading to the mitigation of gender stereotypes, considering that the male gender stereotype was active in the MTurk sample, but not in the professional one. Originality/value This study contributes to the advice-taking research field by showing the interplay between advisor gender and advice justification in a quasirational managerial decision setting with both analytic and intuitive cues. In advice-taking literature, observations are usually collected from students. However, as this study focused on managerial decisions, the authors collected independent samples from MTurk workers and Brazilian professionals.
publisher Universidade de São Paulo
publishDate 2020
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2531-04882020000100004
work_keys_str_mv AT ribeiroviniciusfarias advisorgenderandadvicejustificationinadvicetaking
AT hilaladrianavictoriagaribaldide advisorgenderandadvicejustificationinadvicetaking
AT avilamarcosgoncalves advisorgenderandadvicejustificationinadvicetaking
_version_ 1756442021761908736