This study is based on the dataset of Study 4 of Lu et al.9. This study was conducted to examine the leadership achievement of EA (n = 292), SA (n = 149), and White (n = 765) students in groups. 1,523 MBA students attending top business schools. For more details, see Lu et al.9. The outcome variable was leader nomination, which was based on a survey asking students to nominate their class leader. Each student may submit 1-5 nominations. Explanatory variables included age, gender, socio-economic status (ESE), the Big Five personality traits (Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability), Assertiveness, and Participation. Includes whether the person was born in the United States.
Figure 1 shows a comparison of leader nominations (LNs) between the U.S.-born and foreign-born groups for EA, SA, and WP. The left plot shows the 95% CI of the mean value of LN, and the right plot shows the distribution of LN observations. US-born EAs (M = 2.95 LN, SD = 7.93) were significantly more likely to be named a leader than foreign-born EAs (M = 0.94 LN, SD = 3.33, t = 1.90, P = 0.03) It was expensive. sample t-test). The difference in LN was smaller for the two groups of SA (US-born SA: M = 7.09 LN, SD = 12.27; foreign-born SA: M = 3.25 LN, SD = 5.54, t = 1.72; P = 0.05). It is hardly noticeable in WP (US-born WP: M = 3.66 LN, SD = 7.35; foreign-born WP: M = 3.46 LN, SD = 7.10, t = 0.35, P = 0.36). This means that being born in the United States does not have the same effect on LN of different ethnic groups.
Figure 1
Comparison of leader nominations between U.S.-born and foreign-born groups in EA, SA, and WP in Study 2.
Lu et al.9 built a multilevel Poisson regression model to predict LN including all explanatory variables (SI Appendix, Table S2). In this model, the dummy variable US-born is treated as an additive term that does not interact with other independent variables. The model assumes that the effect of US birthplace is the same for EA, SA, and WP. Based on evidence that US birth may differentially impact LN by ethnic group, we extended the model to include interaction terms between US birth and other covariates (SI Appendix, Table S3). Comparison of models based on AIC and BIC (Model 4 in Table S2: AIC = 8586.01, BIC = 8657.11 vs. Model 4 in Table S3: AIC = 8482.34, BIC = 8609.30) shows that the interaction model has a better model fit. It shows that there is. That of the additive model of Lu et al. (1). Additionally, many of the interaction terms are statistically significant. Specifically, the interaction term between EA and US-born EA was significantly greater than zero (B = 0.85, SE = 0.12, P < 0.001), and the LN between US-born and foreign-born EA indicates that the difference in LN between U.S.-born and foreign-born EAs is much larger. Differences between US-born and foreign-born groups in SA and WP.
Both Figure 1 and the interaction model (SI Appendix, Table S3) provide evidence that being born in the United States differentially impacts LN in EA, SA, and WP. To facilitate more direct comparisons, we fit Poisson regression models for the U.S.-born and foreign-born groups separately, with the reference category of race as WP. The results are summarized in Table 2. Controlling for other variables, foreign-born EAs had significantly lower LN than WP (B = − 0.73, SE = 0.08, P < 0.001), whereas US-born EAs had higher LN than WP. (B = 0.14, SE = 0.08, P < 0.1). The model also showed that foreign-born SAs had higher LN than WP (B = 0.21, SE = 0.07, P < 0.01), and that US-born SAs had an even greater advantage in LN than WP. (B = 0.48, SE = 0.07), P < 0.001).
Table 2. Multilevel Poisson regression predicting potential leadership candidates (foreign-born vs. U.S.-born).
Of all covariates (Table 2), assertiveness (US-born group: B = 0.26, SE = 0.04, P < 0.001; foreign-born group: B = 0.51, SE = 0.06, P < 0.001) and extraversion (US-born group: B = 0.26, SE = 0.04, P < 0.001)-born group: B = 0.53, SE = 0.02, P < 0.001, foreign-born group: B = 0.58, SE = 0.02, P < 0.001) both the US-born and foreign-born groups have the highest odds of LN. group born. Figures 2 and 3 show the relationship with LN. For both origin groups, the figures show that, across ethnic groups, higher degrees of assertiveness/extraversion are associated with higher LN.
Figure 2
Leader nomination and proactiveness of EA, SA, and WP in Study 2.
Figure 3
Nomination and sampling of EA, SA, and WP leaders in Study 2.
Based on the reviewers’ suggestions, we also built a series of four models and summarized the results in Table 3. Model 1 includes non-cultural variables, Model 2 includes ethnic categories (EA, SA, and WP; EA as the reference category), and Model 3 additionally includes ethnic categories by US-born (EA/US-born). , EA/foreign-born, SA/US-born, SA/foreign-born, WP/US-born, WP). /foreign-born and EA/US-born as reference categories), and finally, model 4 also adds extraversion and proactiveness. Model 2, without including US-born (i.e., without distinguishing between home and host culture), SA (B = 1.2, SE = 0.07, P < 0.001) and WP (B = 1.08, SE = 0.05; P < 0.001) indicating the presence of both. ) significantly exceeds the EA of LN, indicating a common bamboo ceiling effect. Model 3 showed that US-born EAs had significantly higher LN than foreign-born EAs (B = − 1.27, SE = 0.1, P < 0.001), and their LN was not significantly different from that of foreign-born SAs. (B = 0.1, SE = 0.09, P = 0.30) and WP (B = 0.12, SE = 0.09, P = 0.17). After adding extraversion and proactiveness, Model 4 shows that U.S.-born EAs still have significantly higher LN than foreign-born EAs. Interestingly, the LN of US-born EAs was higher than that of US-born WPs (B = − 0.16, SE = 0.8, P < 0.05) and foreign-born WPs (B = − 0.41, SE = 0.09, P < 0.05). That was significantly higher. 0.001), and foreign-born SA (B = − 0.2, SE = 0.09, P < 0.05). Although US-born EAs still had significantly lower LN than US-born SAs, the difference became much smaller after controlling for extraversion and assertiveness (Model 3: B = − 0.86, SE = 0.1; Model 4: B = − 0.39, SE = 0.1). The AIC and BIC of Model 4 are both significantly smaller than the other three models, providing evidence of the validity of the comparison results.
Table 3 Multilevel Poisson regression predicting leader nomination.
We also performed a Bayesian network (BN) analysis 26,27 using the bnlearn package 28 in R to describe and visualize the dependencies between all variables in this dataset. This relationship is not limited to that specified in the parametric Poisson model. BN is a probabilistic graphical model, where variables are represented as nodes and arcs represent stochastic dependencies between variables. They can capture the interaction of different variables and provide insight into how they influence each other, and have been employed in fields such as psychology, medicine, and biology29,30 ,31. The final network structure was obtained by examining and averaging 1000 network structures to reduce the influence of random local optimal network learning. The averaged network structure is based on the selection of arcs that are present in at least 85% of the 1000 networks studied. The resulting network structure shown in Figure 4 highlights important relationships relevant to LN. Taking into account other variables, ethnicity is directly related to extraversion and assertiveness, and extraversion is associated with assertiveness and LN. This construct is also consistent with the psychological theory that assertiveness is one aspect of extraversion.32
Figure 4
Bayesian network structure of Study 2 variables.
Based on this study, Lu et al.9 conclude that EAs are less likely than WPs to be nominated as leaders, and SAs are more likely than WPs to be nominated, and that this effect is partially It is mediated by self-assertion. After reanalyzing the data, we found that U.S.-born and foreign-born EAs are represented very differently in the LN and should not be combined into one group. Although foreign-born EAs were less likely than WPs to be nominated as leaders, U.S.-born EAs were actually more likely to be nominated as leaders than WPs. Another conclusion is that assertiveness and extraversion are related to people’s LN (both are highly significant in Model 4, and adding them improves the model fit of Model 4 compared to Model 3). but they only partially mediate the LN gap between foreign-born and foreign-born EAs. other groups. This is because the LN gap between foreign-born EAs and other groups is reduced, but not eliminated, after proactiveness and extraversion are added to the model. This result was also demonstrated by Lu et al. 9 There are other cultural aspects that contribute to differences in leadership attainment among ethnic groups. For example, Lu 44,45 found that there is a stereotype that EAs are less creative and more social with other EAs (i.e., ethnic homosexuality), and that both have the valuable leadership qualities of creativity and ethnic heterosexuality. We conducted a study showing that attributes are not mutually exclusive.
This study investigated the leadership attainment of young business school EAs and SAs with an average age of 27.9 years. Lu et al.9 also include two studies conducted to examine whether EAs are less likely than SAs to hold senior management positions at large U.S. companies (data is proprietary and not available). (not possible). The average age of the participants was approximately 40 years. In their Study 2, 858 EA employees and 867 SA employees from 18 S&P 500-level companies participated in a field survey, and in Study 3a, EA employees from 16 other S&P 500-level companies participated one year later. 878 employees and 797 SA employees participated. In both studies, leadership achievement was operationalized as whether a participant currently held an executive/senior leader position (51 EAs and 54 SAs in Study 2; 9 SAs in Study 3a). Data were missing for EA and 15 SA). Summary statistics regarding leadership acquisition provided in Study 2 were: U.S.-born EAs (23.0%), foreign-born EAs (12.8%), U.S.-born SAs (33.3%), and foreign-born SA (29.3%)). Summary statistics for Study 3a were US-born EAs (18.7%), foreign-born EAs (13.5%), US-born SAs (27.2%), and foreign-born SAs (24.7%).
Comparing the attainment of leadership in senior management positions at large U.S. companies, we find that: 1) SAs are more likely than EAs to attain leadership in these companies; 2) For both EA and SA, being born in the United States increases the likelihood of leadership positions. A more relevant finding in our study is that being born in the United States has a greater impact on EAs than SAs on leadership attainment. Specifically, in Study 2, U.S.-born EAs were 10.2% (23–12.8%) more likely to hold leadership positions than foreign-born EAs, and for SA, the difference was 4% (33.3–29.3%). ) was. In Study 3a, the difference was 5.2% (18.7–13.5%) for EA and 2.5% (27.2–24.7%) for SA. Overall, the influence of US-born versus foreign-born on EA leadership acquisition is more than twice that of SA (10.2% vs. 4% in Study 2 and 5.2% vs. 2.5% in Study 3a). These summary statistics provide evidence that for older EAs and SAs at more advanced stages of their careers, host culture has a stronger influence on attaining EA leadership than for SAs in the United States.
