Gender Divide on AI Adoption

Are men more likely than women to adopt generative artificial intelligence tools in their work?  Indeed, that is what scholars Nicholas Otis, Solène Delecourt, Katelynn Cranney, and Rembrand Koning have discovered. They recently published a working paper titled "Global Evidence on Gender Gaps and Generative AI."  Here is an excerpt from their paper:

The findings above document that gender gaps in generative AI are nearly universal. We find women use generative AI less than men in data from 18 studies covering 143,008 people from across the world as well as data on who uses top generative AI websites and apps. Moreover, equalizing access does not appear to fully close the gap, even when presented with the chance to use generative AI, women are less likely to use this new technology than men. Akin to efforts to equalize female labor market participation and pay (England, Levine, and Mishel, 2020), it appears that social, cultural, and institutional frictions have led to a gendered gap in generative AI adoption.

Why does this gender gap exist?  HBS Working Knowledge recently interviewed Rembrand Koning about the research.  The article, by Michael Blanding, reports that, "the research suggests women are concerned about the ethics of using the tools and may fear they will be judged harshly in the workplace for relying on them."  

Why is the gender gap finding so consequential?  Two important ramifications must be considered.  First, will the differential usage lead to the exacerbation of gender biases?  In their paper, the scholars write:

This disparity has the potential to be significant. As generative AI systems are still in their formative stages, the under-representation of women may result in early biases in the user data these tools learn from, resulting in self-reinforcing gender disparities (Cao, Koning, and Nanda, 2023). Such biases in user data—similar to those that have previously led to racial disparities in generative AI performance—could result in generative AI systems that reinforce gendered stereotypes and in tools that are less effective at the tasks more often performed by women (Koenecke et al., 2020; Guilbeault et al., 2024).

Secondly, the lower adoption rates by women may affect their career opportunities and future compensation, according to these scholars.  Thus, further work will be needed to understand what's driving the gender gap, and how it may be affecting employees and their careers.  

Thinking Carefully about Boomerang Employees

How often do employees return to your company after departing for a promising opportunity elsewhere?  Why did they leave, and what caused them to return?  Anthony C. Klotz, Andrea Derler, Carlina Kim and Manda Winlaw have conducted some useful research on the topic of boomerang employees.  They found that returning to an organization where an individual once worked is quite common. Based on their analysis of extensive employee work records, "28% of “new hires” were actually boomerang hires who had resigned within the last 36 months."  Clearly, employees depart and often discover that the grass indeed was not greener elsewhere.  

What does this boomerang phenomenon mean for employees and employers?  For employees, the research implies that individuals must do more homework before jumping ship.  They need to go beyond what recruiters might be telling them and try to ascertain precisely what their role and responsibilities will be.  Moreover, they need to try to determine how the culture and values as articulated might differ from the actual practice within the organization.  Chris Argyris used to describe this schism as the difference between espoused values and values-in-use.  Employees also need to focus on how they leave their existing organization.  Ian Morris, co-founder of Likewise and former CEO of real estate software company Market Leader, once advised my students that they should always "leave well" when departing an organization.  You never know if and when your path may cross with that of a former co-worker or manager.  Preserving relationships during and after the departure may be very important for one's career.  It surely will help if you become a boomerang employee.

For companies, the boomerang phenomenon means two things. For the companies losing talent, managers  should maintain open lines of communication with talented former employees.  The research shows that many boomerangs occur shortly after the one year mark at the new company. Thus, managers should reach out around that time to see how things are going for the former employee at their new organization.  For the companies gaining talent, they need to think about how they can check in regularly with new employees to see if they are finding the position consistent with their expectations.  Identifying discrepancies between expectations and reality as early as possible can help to avoid misunderstandings, clarify roles and responsibilities, and make adjustments to better match workers' professional goals with organizational needs and demands.   Don't wait for the one-year merit review to have an in-depth conversation with a new employee because they may already have one foot out the door at that point.  

Creative Ideas Really Do Emerge More Often from the Periphery, Not the Core

Andy Grove, Former CEO of Intel

Do great ideas come from incumbents or from outsiders in a particular field?  Conventional wisdom says that outsiders usually introduce the boldest, most original innovations.  Is that true?  Lee Simmons recently wrote an article for Stanford Insights about the work of Paul Vicinanza, Amir Goldberg, and Sameer Srivastava.  The three scholars developed an incredibly large and diverse dataset, and then they used a deep learning model to examine the information.  They found that prescient ideas actually do come from outsiders more often than from those at the "core" of a field.  

The scholars examined over 100,000 quarterly earnings calls, more than 4 million judiciary rulings, and approximately 5 million speeches delivered in the U.S. Congress.   They used BERT, a deep learning model, to examine the texts.  The model rated each text based on the level of "prescience.  In other words, the speaker needed to not only offer an original idea, but it had to be an accurate prediction of what would come to be in the future.   Simmons reports on the scholars' findings: "The results were striking: In all three fields, they found that prescient ideas were much more likely to emerge from the periphery than the core. 'In studies of creativity, people tend to focus on brilliant individuals,' Goldberg says. 'But unless you think there are more geniuses on the margins, this suggests that where you sit matters at least as much as who you are.'" 

There it is... a person's position and perspective may matter just as much, if not more, than their particular knowledge or skillset.  You simply see things differently when you are the core of a field as opposed to the periphery.  Of course, that doesn't mean that you are doomed to not be innovative if you are an incumbent at the core of your industry or field.  You can take specific actions to move to the periphery, scan the external environment more broadly, and identify new ideas emerging at the margins of your domain.  Andy Grove used to say that, "snow melts at the periphery."  By that, he meant that new threats and opportunities often emerged first at the margins of an organization.  People at the core were often insulated from these new trends.  So, he encouraged his people to constantly get out to the periphery of his organization to spot and understand new trends.  

Do Those Super Bowl Commercials Increase Sales?

Companies will spend an enormous amount of money on Super Bowl commercials during Sunday's big game.  Sporting News reported that companies will spend an average of $7 million for a 30-second Super Bowl commercial.  Of course, you might be wondering:  How much of an impact do those commercials have on subsequent purchases?  I dug through some research on the topic, and I found one particularly interesting paper by Wesley R. Hartmann and Daniel Klapper.  They published their research in Marketing Science several years ago.  

Hartmann and Klapper examined how commercials impacted sales after the Super Bowl.  They found a positive relationship between the advertising and product purchases during a subsequent sporting event.   Specifically, they examined how Super Bowl ads impacted consumption of products such as beer during the March Madness college basketball tournament, which takes place about 5-6 weeks after the Super Bowl.  Here is their summary of the findings from the research: 

We measure the effect of ad viewership on post–Super Bowl sales. Without an obvious horizon for the effects, we measure the effect separately for each week following the game. While the first few weeks appear to follow a typical decay pattern, the advertising effects show resurgence in weeks when shoppers make purchases to consume during subsequent major sports broadcasts. This pattern suggests the hypothesis that Super Bowl advertising may build a complementarity with sports viewership more broadly.  To test this, we collected market-week-level data on viewership of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball tournament and interacted it with the Super Bowl ad exposures. We found that purchases for consumption during viewership of the NCAA tournament were augmented if the brand’s Super Bowl ad viewership was high.

Who Makes Those Private Label Products In Your Grocery Store and Why?

Ever wonder who manufactures the private label products you purchase at the grocery store?  Most of us suspect it is one of the large branded consumer products companies, but it is sometimes difficult to determine which firm specifically supplied that product to the grocer.   Why do these big national brands choose to produce private label products?  Scholars Yu Ma, Kusum Ailawadi, Mercedes Martos-Partal, and Oscar Gonzalez-Benito have conducted an in-depth study of private label manufacturing, and they offer some interesting insights.  They studied the private label market in Spain, examining data for six of the largest retailers in the country.   

First, they confirm a well-known fact about private label production.  The large brands have an inherent advantage when producing private labels.  They can leverage economies of scale to produce those private label goods at low costs.  Moreover, manufacturing the private label goods, and further taking advantage of scale economies, can lower their costs of producing their branded products.  

Second, they find that manufacturers may be supplying private label products in hopes of strengthening their relationships with key retailers.  In so doing, they hope to gain more shelf space for their branded products.   The scholars confirm that retailers do carry more of a manufacturer's branded products if that company supplies private label goods to their stores.   If a manufacturer exits the private label business, they tend to lose shelf space for their branded goods.  

However, interestingly, they find that the national brands do not gain market share in their categories simply because they have more shelf space and more availability of their product in the stores.  In the end, the consumer drives the success of the brands.  More shelf space doesn't mean more sales, and ultimately, a retailer may take shelf space away if products don't sell.  

One thing that they do not examine is why some branded manufacturers are more successful at private label production than others.  I suspect that some branded goods companies simply do not have the efficiencies and cost structure required to offer private label goods at competitive prices.  Moreover, attempts to become more efficient might harm the quality of the branded goods the firm supplies.