Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Female CEOs and Corporate Innovation Behaviors—Research on the Regulating Effect of Gender Culture

Sustainability 2019, 11(3), 682; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030682

by Shuo Han¹, Weijun Cui^1,2,*, Jin Chen^3,4 and Yu Fu¹

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Sustainability 2019, 11(3), 682; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030682

Submission received: 28 November 2018 / Revised: 22 January 2019 / Accepted: 23 January 2019 / Published: 28 January 2019

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Transition from China-Made to China-Innovation )

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this interesting article. Certainly it approaches a topic of high interest, it has considerable scientific merit but also practical implications. The article is well organized and easy to read.

I have several suggestions to authors for improving their article:

the title could be shortened, and thus be more suggestive and focused

the data is a bit old, as the figures are refering to 2011-2013

authors should consider if is appropriate to split the final sections into two different ones, i.e. Discussion, and Conclusions and implications. In the final section there should be emphasized the major findings that advance the knowledge in the field, and also the practical implications, as there are plenty of them, given the topic.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Hello!

Thank you very much for your valuable advice. In response to your opinions, we have made serious modifications. The specific modifications are as follows:

1.The title could be shortened, and thus be more suggestive and focused

Thank you for your valuable opinions. As is known to all, the topic is very important to the article, so your Suggestions are very important to us.There are three main considerations in our revision,First, from the perspective of readers, we change the general manager to the CEO directly, because it is more acceptable for international readers to replace the general manager with the CEO, so that the expression is more standardized. On the other hand, this paper mainly studies women, so it is directly reflected in the title.

Therefore, the title of the article is changed to“Female CEO And Enterprise Innovation ----Research On The Moderating Effect Of Gender Culture”

2.the data is a bit old, as the figures are refering to 2011-2013

The data of the world bank China enterprise is selected mainly for the following three reasons:

First, due to the availability of data, micro data at the enterprise level are difficult to be obtained publicly in China, and this data is the latest data available for the world bank survey of Chinese enterprises.

Second, in terms of sample selection, the reason why the data of listed companies are not selected in this paper is that non-listed companies are the main body of the Chinese market. As of 2016, there are 3,337 enterprises in Shanghai and shenzhen, and there are 8.0754 million market entities in China. Therefore, listed companies in China account for a low proportion of all kinds of enterprises in China, and the market entities are non-listed companies.

Third, compared with non-listed companies, Chinese listed companies have better corporate governance characteristics and more complete systems. Therefore, considering the main body of market enterprises and corporate governance, the 2012 world bank China enterprise questionnaire survey data can more objectively reflect the impact of CEO gender on enterprise innovation of Chinese enterprises.

3.The last paragraph is divided into discussion, conclusion and significance, with emphasis on the theoretical and practical significance of this paper

According to your suggestion, we modify the last part into three parts, including the first part, the conclusion; Second, policy recommendations. Third, pointing out the deficiencies of this study

Your suggestion is of great significance to improve the quality of this paper, and it is highly feasible. We have modified it according to your opinion. Thank you so much!

In addition, the editorial department also provided another expert opinion on manuscript review. We made the following modifications and reported to you together.

1.Definition

As we all know, the use of typical terms is of great significance in enhancing the readability of articles.Therefore, we accept your opinion and revise the terminology in this article, mainly as follows:

Change exploitation technological innovation to incremental innovations

Change exploration technological innovation into radical innovations

Change General Manager to CEO

Change risk averse to risk averse

2.Abstract

In the abstract section, you put forward that the last sentence of the abstract is meaningless. We agree with you that it has no substantive meaning. Therefore, we delete that sentence and replace it with a statement expressing policy and practical suggestions.

3.Introduction

In this part, we have made some modifications, mainly including:

First, the sequence of changes. Firstly, it explains the hot research, introduces the contradiction between cognition and practice, and constructs the conflict. Then it further explains the new discoveries in reality and the shortcomings in theory, and makes a detailed introduction to the following.

Secondly, we delete the sample which can not fully represent the whole. In the original article, we listed the female CEOs of Chinese and American enterprises, but as these examples may not fully represent the female CEOs as a whole, we deleted them according to your point of view.

Thirdly, in the introduction, it introduces the regulating role of gender culture, which paves the way for the following.

4.Discussion of literature

Thank you for your opinion. This part of your opinion is very important to us. We thought that women's risk preferences had changed. In fact, this statement is one-sided. We also realized this problem, so we deleted this expression. However, the masculinization of female executives in enterprises exists, so we attribute this change to socialization and self-selection according to your opinion. At the same time, the introduction, literature review and empirical analysis have been revised.

We also read the references again about the disadvantage of the existing mechanisms to women. The original content is too simple, only the specific results are introduced, but no detailed explanation is given. Therefore, we added the content in the revision.

5.Sample selection

In terms of sample selection, this paper is not detailed enough. Therefore, this paper makes a detailed introduction, mainly including the following aspects:

First, the introduction of data. The data sources are introduced in detail, including several aspects you proposed, such as sample information, data content and so on.

Secondly, the reasons for choosing data. Why to choose data is a very important issue, which is not fully explained in the original text. In this revision, I explained in detail. For the World Bank data, there are three main points. First, this is the latest open data. Second, this is the data of non-listed companies. Third, non-listed companies have more research value. CGSS data are also introduced in detail, and two reasons for using the data are given.

Thirdly, in data filtering, according to which problems (including the specific content of the problem) deleted what? What did report? They are explained in detail in the paper.This information can be found in the new manuscript.

6. Variable Design

In variable design, there is a problem of unclear explanation in this paper, so we have made detailed modifications, mainly including:

(1) Explained variables: Firstly, the meaning of variables defines the specific content of incremental innovations and radical innovations. Secondly, the year is defined, and the last 3 years are described in parentheses. Thirdly, variable assignment indicates the source of reference and the basis of variable assignment.

(2) Regulating variables: Firstly, the reasons why women's status in marriage is used as a measure of gender culture are explained. On the one hand, marriage and family are an important part of gender culture. Secondly, the provision of women's social status begins with family, and finally, the success of women's career can not be separated from the support of family. Secondly, it explains the assignment method, provides references and explains the meaning of variables.

(3) Market competition. This variable is not easy to understand. On the one hand, it is a language problem, on the other hand, it is not explained clearly. The number of competitors mainly reflects the fierce degree of market competition. Therefore, the number of competitors is countless, indicating that the competition is fierce, while a certain number of competitors indicate that the competition is so fierce. Therefore, the degree of competition is low = 1, the degree of competition is high = 0, so this is a reflection of the level of competition.

(4) Regional characteristics. In the control variables, this paper sets regional characteristics variables, so it explains which samples belong to which regions.

7.Descriptive statistics

First, we did find that the previous description was too complicated, so we deleted this part of the description and retained some descriptions of basic information about variables.

Secondly, on the characteristics of geographical distribution, the introduction before this paper is too simple, ignoring the differences between the East and the West. Therefore, we introduce the connotation of eastern, central and Western China in detail, and explain which part of the sample belongs to. The same is true of the South and the North.

Thirdly, in descriptive statistics, we delete the log data and replace it with the original data. We consulted the data design table carefully. Only the size of the enterprise has this problem, because the size of the enterprise is measured by the number of enterprises.

8.Regression analysis

Firstly, the number of female CEOs is a common problem in this kind of research. The existing literature has this problem more or less. Referring to the existing research, there are few samples and no good measures to deal with them. The existing research also seldom deals with them, so it can only carry out PSM model test in robustness test.

Secondly, since 1, 2, 3 and 4 of incremental innovation indicate the frequency of the same behavior, which is an increase in degree, rather than four different behaviors, we consider OLS to be the appropriate method by referring to the existing research. Therefore, in the empirical analysis, we have not changed the method. However, we also consulted the relevant literature, and the method you proposed is also applicable. Therefore, we used it in robust regression, and the empirical results are consistent with your expectations.

Third, about causation. Causality is the most important issue in empirical research. Empirical research can only prove correlation, but can not prove causality. Therefore, we also explained it in the end, and admitted that it was only a possible explanation.In view of the availability of data, the gender culture factor in this paper is defined to the provincial level reflecting the society’s overall attitude towards women. Therefore, the influence of female CEOs on corporate innovation behaviors may not change the overall gender culture of the whole society, while the gender culture of the whole society may affect the influence of female CEOs on corporate innovation behaviors. That is to say, the gender culture in this paper is an exogenous variable. Thus, endogenous problem of this model is solved. But the robustness test is still needed. In this paper, robustness test is conducted through the application of three methods, i.e. sample distribution, sample bias and replacement of method.

9.Language

Because you put forward that the language is not fluent, there are grammatical errors, and we amend the text too much, it is not convenient to modify the original text, so we directly re-translated the text and proofread it. The revised part is marked in red so that you can review it again.

10.Robustness Test

Robustness test is also very important for papers. We added robustness test according to the method you provided, that is, 6.3 replacement method, Truncated Poisson model for exploitative innovation, probit model for exploratory innovation, and the result is robust after replacement method.

11.Other

(1) In the introduction, we made some modifications, mainly highlighting the positive regulatory role of gender culture;

(2) The last sentence in the introduction was also revised and replaced by policy recommendations.

(3) We did not give a detailed introduction to enterprises above scale in the original article, mainly because this is a common concept in China. Correspondingly, there are also micro-enterprises, which we also introduced.

(4) Footnotes at Page 1 line 38 in the original text are also processed.

(5) The problem of icon labeling in the original text has also been revised.

(6) The number in descriptive statistics was changed from 84 to 74.

In a word, thank you very much for your efforts. Your suggestion is very meaningful to improve the quality of this article. The suggestion is very feasible. We have revised it according to your opinion. Again, thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study examines the relationship between the gender of general managers and the levels of different types of innovation achieved. There is consideration as to whether the priorities of women in society moderate the relationship between gender and innovation. Using data from Chinese companies from a number of different cities the study finds evidence that businesses run by female general managers are more likely to innovate. They also find that this relationship is stronger where a more supportive culture is present. Tentative conclusions are drawn in relation to businesses needing to support the promotion of female general managers.

Overall

The study covers an interesting and topical area of research. The results relating to female general managers’ influence on innovation levels are interesting, and the moderating effect of gender culture is as might be expected. Although the analysis could be strengthened the approach appears reasonable. An exception might be the competition variable which appears very dubious, but this could relate to the limited detail provided on how it is formed. However, the paper is poorly written both in terms of the grammatical and typographical errors that are apparent throughout, but more importantly in terms of the limited detail and justification that is provided for much of the theoretical and analytical development. As such although the paper’s results are interesting and I would suggest that the authors are given an opportunity to revise and resubmit, the actual paper itself is a huge distance from being of a standard that could be accepted.

Definitions

Throughout a number of terms that are non-typical to those commonly used in the literature are utilised and as such need to be clearly defined and justified. For example, the terms ‘exploitation technological innovation’ and ‘exploration technological innovation’ appear to be similar to ‘incremental innovations’ and ‘radical innovations’ typically used in the literature. The authors would be better advised to consider the terms more widely used or clearly define their own definitions and illustrate how their concepts differ. They should also make a clear case for why they are adopting this approach which differs to that of the rest of the literature.

Similarly the term ‘general manager’ is akin to ‘chief executive officer (CEO)’ more commonly used. However, it is reasonable that the management of companies in China may differ from that of the western dominated literature and an alternative definition might be appropriate, but again the role being studied needs justifying and explaining for an international audience.

Risk haters is another unusual term (page 2 lines 45 to 46). I presume studies have found women to be more ‘risk averse’ than men. Take care to ensure that the terms and concepts used are those used in other studies or where unusual are appropriate for your study and defined in your study.

Discussion of Literature

Many of your studies finding evidence of women managers to be more innovative tend to be based on single (or a small number of cases) or even anecdotal. You need to take real care forming your arguments about the rise of innovative women general managers. There will have been a distribution of risk aversion across both genders. Studies have tended to find women on average to be more risk averse, but this does not mean to say that there have never been any less risk averse women. They have always been there. Also remember that general managers are not the norm of the population, they are an extremely small subset with probably very different risk preferences to the rest of the population. There will be self-selection into these positions. A rise in innovative female general managers therefore seems less likely to be due to changes in women’s risk preferences (page 2 line 58). This could be true, but you need a better developed argument.

Linked to this when the authors look at evidence on changing outcomes from female management they need to take care over which mechanism this evidence supports. As presented the authors are just looking at results relating to the overall impact, but the authors then attribute this to supporting a particular mechanism (page 3 line 122), when it could be the combination of socialisation and self-selection.

More explanation is needed about the disadvantage from performance feedback (page 3 line 133). The authors’ point is lost because it is not clear what this relates to.

Sample selection

The sample selection and cleaning needs more clarity throughout. For example, what sectors are included (page 5 line 208)? Telling me some sectors are included, presumably means others are excluded, but this is pointless if you don’t tell me which is which.

How are inaccurate productivity and employment figures identified (page 5 line 211)? Have the authors checked figures against secondary sources? If this is the case which sources?

Operationalisation of variables

Table 1 provides an idea of how many of the key variables are created, but it is a little unclear. For example ‘exploitation innovation’ from my reading takes a value of 0 to 4 depending on whether any of four forms of exploitation innovation have taken place. This I have inferred from the table and discussion of results that follow rather than subsection 3.3 on variables. More detail is needed, in particular what timeframe are respondents being asked about (last year, last 3 years etc.). Why are these measures appropriate? Citations to previous studies are provided, but as these are the key dependent variables in this study the justification needs to be presented here.

The gender culture measure also needs clarification. What level of aggregation is it measured at, region, province, city? Who answers this question? Is it the whole population, is it just women? What sample sizes are available at the level of aggregation used here? Overall can this measure be relied upon? Although other studies have used this or a similar measure and have been cited, they don’t appear to have used it in exactly the same context. The authors needs to justify why a variable looking at marriage v doing well captures a lack of support for women in management positions. In truth you probably cannot get a perfect measure from secondary sources, but you need to make the case for this measure being the best available.

The ‘number of competitors’ variable is particularly strange. Again the authors have not provided the detail that is required in subsection 3.3 and therefore it may be less problematic than it at first appears. Currently table 1 implies that the variable is a dummy. Where lower numbers of competitors are given a value of 1, where there are so many competitors that no number can be put on it a value of zero is given. Therefore the dummy reflects a relative lack of competitors. However, in the results there is an implication that the variable is actually zero if there are too many competitors, but the count of competitors otherwise. This creates a big problem as the measure is not linear, zero represents extreme competition, 1 presents very little competition, and higher values represent an approach to extreme competition (i.e. higher values are also similar to having zero). This really needs clearing up.

These are examples, but in general the main variables need better and clearer explanations.

Explanations of the descriptive results

There is no need to explain that if 25% answer a two option question in one way 75% answered it the other way. The reader can understand this. Particularly if subsection 3.3 has been clarified sufficiently as outlined above. The authors also repeat themselves by discussing in detail the mean values relating to innovations and the gender of general managers in the sample having looked at exactly the same values through the percentages.

Comparisons between East and West need more explanation. Which provinces are counted as Eastern? Is it just those on the coast or does this stretch inland. Given that few provinces that are truly Western have any responses it needs to be clear what is Eastern to establish what others are being compared to. To be honest from Figures 1 and 3 I can’t actually see any pattern contrasting East and West.

You might take the natural log of variables for regressions, but when describing the firms go back to the actual numbers as most of us have to get a calculator out to see the average size of a firm when the natural log is reported (page 10 line 319).

Regression approaches

The data used to examine the exploitation innovation is not really suitable for OLS regressions as it is count data that is truncated at a maximum value of 4. Some approach such as a truncated Poission regression would be better employed. This may not affect the results and many studies do use OLS when it is not appropriate, but the authors need to explore whether this creates bias in their results and justify their approach more strongly.

Interpretation of results

There needs to be care taken in how the results are interpreted and described. On page 13 lines 375 to 383 the results are written as though proving the mechanisms introduced in section 2. The results indicate a relationship is present, but do not show causality. This means that the results should be worded as being consistent with the theories being examined, but other explanations may be possible.

The problem highlighted above in relation to the nature of the competition variable becomes apparent in interpreting the coefficients found for this variable (page 13 line 385). If as suggested by table 1 the variable takes a value of zero when there are too many competitors to count a positive coefficient could in fact mean that competition has a negative effect on innovation if a simple dummy. Equally if the positive value increases as more competitors are present reflecting a count it could be as suggested a negative result.

As noted above there is a need to carefully define the Eastern sample (page 15 line 452). Depending on this definition care needs to be taken with regard to the robustness of these results. There are very few female general managers in the whole sample, so how many in the Western sample where they are less prevalent?

English language

The grammatical and typographical errors make reading and understanding parts of the paper near impossible. It would appear that the authors need to either enlist help in the form of an additional co-author with skills in this area or by paying a professional editing service.

The term ‘remarkable’ is used throughout when describing the results. I think the authors mean ‘significant’. As with other terms the authors should look to stick with conventions to avoid confusion. Where a significant relationship is expected but none is present this could be described as remarkable, so just using the term for significant results is inappropriate.

More minor points

A moderating effect is noted in the abstract, but there is no indication if it is positive or negative. To attract people to read on perhaps more clarity could be given.

The last sentence of the abstract doesn’t really add anything as it is just repeating that which went before. It could either be removed or replaced with a sentence that gives a line on the implications of the study for policy or practice to show the wider value of the study.

On page 1 line 34 we are told that data relates to enterprises above a ‘designated size’ what is this designated size? It serves no value to mention it if it is not defined.

A foot or end note appears to be indicated on page 1 line 38, but this is not present, or it needs clarifying that this relates to the same low quality source noted above on line 37.

Even though your study is from the title about the moderating effect of gender culture, this is not mentioned in the introduction section.

The number of tables and figures is just random. Table 3 comes before table 2 for example, and figure 2 is missing.

On page 9 there is a typo with 84 female general managers mentioned rather than 74 as in the tables.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Hello!

Thank you very much for your valuable advice. I have read your review opinions three times and admire you very much. I agree with your opinions.This is my first contribution to an English journal.I haven't noticed many details, some of which may be due to the differences between Chinese and English.Therefore, your advice is very important for me, a beginner. Under your guidance, I have made progress. Thank you very much.

Next, please allow me to report the modifications to this paper, the specific modifications are as follows:

1. Definition

Change exploitation technological innovation to incremental innovations

Change exploration technological innovation into radical innovations

Change General Manager to CEO

Change risk averse to risk averse

2.Abstract

3.Introduction

In this part, we have made some modifications, mainly including:

Thirdly, in the introduction, it introduces the regulating role of gender culture, which paves the way for the following.

4.Discussion of literature

5.Sample selection

In terms of sample selection, this paper is not detailed enough. Therefore, this paper makes a detailed introduction, mainly including the following aspects:

First, the introduction of data. The data sources are introduced in detail, including several aspects you proposed, such as sample information, data content and so on.

6. Variable Design

In variable design, there is a problem of unclear explanation in this paper, so we have made detailed modifications, mainly including:

(4) Regional characteristics. In the control variables, this paper sets regional characteristics variables, so it explains which samples belong to which regions.

7.Descriptive statistics

First, we did find that the previous description was too complicated, so we deleted this part of the description and retained some descriptions of basic information about variables.

8.Regression analysis

9.language