Suchergebnisse

PurposeLabeling women as risk‐averse limits the positive benefits both women and organizations can gain from their risk taking. The purpose of this paper is to explore women's risk taking and reasons for stereotype persistence in order to inform human resource practice and women's career development.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on literature about gender and organizations to identify reasons for the persisting stereotype of women's risk aversion. Utilizing literature and concepts about risk appetite and decision making, the paper evaluates results of the Simmons Gender and Risk Survey database of 661 female managers.FindingsThe paper finds evidence of gender neutrality in risk propensity and decision making in specific managerial contexts other than portfolio allocation.Research limitations/implicationsMore in‐depth research is needed to explore the gender‐neutral motivators of risk decision making and to explore risk taking in a more diverse sample population.Practical implicationsThe paper explores why women's risk taking remains invisible even as they take risks and offers suggestions on how women and organizations may benefit from their risk‐taking activities.Originality/valueThe paper synthesizes evidence on risk taking and gender, and the evidence of female risk taking is an important antidote to persisting stereotypes. The paper outlines reasons for this stereotype persistence and implications for human resource development.

"Corporate credit spreads are large, volatile, countercyclical, and significantly larger than expected losses, but existing macroeconomic models with financial frictions fail to reproduce these patterns, because they imply small and constant aggregate risk premia. Building on the idea that corporate debt, while safe in normal times, is exposed to the risk of economic depression, this paper embeds a trade-off theory of capital structure into a real business cycle model with a small, time-varying risk of large economic disaster. This simple feature generates large, volatile and countercyclical credit spreads as well as novel business cycle implications. In particular, financial frictions substantially amplify the effect of shocks to the disaster probability"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site

Systemische Risiken sind das Produkt tiefgreifender und rasanter technologischer, ökonomischer und sozialer Veränderungen, welche die moderne Welt jeden Tag erlebt. Sie sind durch hohe Komplexität, Ungewissheit, Ambiguität und sich allmählich ausbreitende Wirkungen charakterisiert. Aufgrund dieser Eigenschaften überfordern systemische Risiken das etablierte Risikomanagement and erzeugen neue ungelőste Herausforderungen für die Politikgestaltung in der Risikosteuerung. Ihre negativen Auswirkungen sind häufig durchdringend und beeinträchtigen Bereiche jenseits der direkt ersichtlichen Schadensbereiche. Der Artikel bezieht sich auf ein integratives Risikokonzept zur Bewältigung systemischer Risiken, das Bewertungskriterien, unterschiedliche Risikoklassen und entsprechende Managementstrategien berücksichtigt. Wir argumentieren, dass es eines deliberativen Ansatzes im Risikomanagement und in der Politikgestaltung in der Risikosteuerung bedarf, um systemische Risiken vermeiden, mildern oder kontrollieren zu können.

Despite many claims for and against the use of risk comparisons in risk communication, few empirical studies have explored their effect. Even fewer have examined the public's relative preferences among different kinds of risk comparisons. Two studies, published in this journal in 1990 and 2003, used seven measures of "acceptability" to examine public reaction to 14 examples of risk comparisons, as used by a hypothetical factory manager to explain risks of his ethylene oxide plant. This study examined the effect on preferences of scenarios involving low or high conflict between the factory manager and residents of the hypothetical town (as had the 2003 study), and inclusion of a claim that the comparison demonstrated the risks' acceptability. It also tested the Finucane et al. (2000) affect hypothesis that information emphasizing low risks—as in these risk comparisons—would raise benefits estimates without changing risk estimates. Using similar but revised scenarios, risk comparison examples (10 instead of 14), and evaluation measures, an opportunity sample of 303 New Jersey residents rated the comparisons, and the risks and benefits of the factory. On average, all comparisons received positive ratings on all evaluation measures in all conditions. Direct and indirect measures showed that the conflict manipulation worked; overall, No‐Conflict and Conflict scenarios evoked scores that were not significantly different. The attachment to each risk comparison of a risk acceptability claim ("So our factory's risks should be acceptable to you.") did not worsen ratings relative to conditions lacking this claim. Readers who did or did not see this claim were equally likely to infer an attempt to persuade them to accept the risk from the comparison. As in the 2003 article, there was great individual variability in inferred rankings of the risk comparisons. However, exposure to the risk comparisons did not reduce risk estimates significantly (while raising benefit estimates), and Conflict‐Claim respondents found the risk of the hypothetical factory less acceptable than No‐Conflict respondents. Results suggest that neither risk comparisons nor risk acceptability claims are automatically anathema to audiences, but they may have tiny or unintended effects on audience judgments about risky situations.