IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwrup/138de.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Soziale Interaktion und geschlechtsspezifisches Wettbewerbsverhalten

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Lohse
  • Salmai Qari

Abstract

Entscheidende Charakteristika einer modernen Dienstleistungs- und damit auch beruflichen „Ellenbogen“-Gesellschaft sind interpersonelle Kommunikation und Interaktion von Angesicht zu Angesicht– selbst in einer digitalen Welt. Studien im Bereich Personalgewinnung zeigen, dass Bewerberinnen und Bewerber im persönlichen Gespräch häufig besser bewertet werden als in fernmündlichen Gesprächen via Telefon oder Videocall (Blacksmith et. al, 2016; Basch et. al, 2021). Darüber hinaus belegt eine Umfrage des Harvard Business Review (2016) die Wichtigkeit von direkter Interaktion als entscheidendes Merkmal für den Aufbau langfristiger Geschäftsbeziehungen (95% der Befragten), für das Verhandeln von Verträgen (89%) oder das Verstehen wichtiger Klienten (69%). Für den Geschäftserfolg ist es dabei von großer Bedeutung, dem Gegenüber als möglichst glaub- und vertrauenswürdig zu erscheinen, insbesondere im Vergleich zu etwaigen Konkurrenten. Das galt vor der Corona-Pandemie und dürfte voraussichtlich auch nach der Corona-Pandemie gelten.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Lohse & Salmai Qari, 2021. "Soziale Interaktion und geschlechtsspezifisches Wettbewerbsverhalten," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 138, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwrup:138de
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.831581.de/DIW_Roundup_138_de.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertrand, Marianne, 2011. "New Perspectives on Gender," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 17, pages 1543-1590, Elsevier.
    2. Dwenger, Nadja & Lohse, Tim, 2019. "Do individuals successfully cover up their lies? Evidence from a compliance experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 74-87.
    3. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2008. "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-35, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lohse, Tim & Qari, Salmai, 2021. "Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 1-15.
    2. José de Sousa & Guillaume Hollard, 2021. "From Micro to Macro Gender Differences: Evidence from Field Tournaments," Post-Print hal-03389151, HAL.
    3. Alger, Ingela, 2021. "On the evolution of male competitiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 228-254.
    4. Simon Gaechter & Chris Starmer & Fabio Tufano, 2022. "Measuring “group cohesion” to reveal the power of social relationships in team production," Discussion Papers 2022-12, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    6. Thomas Buser & Muriel Niederle & Hessel Oosterbeek, 2014. "Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(3), pages 1409-1447.
    7. Christian Pfeifer & Gesine Stephan, 2019. "Why women do not ask: gender differences in fairness perceptions of own wages and subsequent wage growth," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(2), pages 295-310.
    8. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    9. Iga Magda & Ewa Cukrowska-Torzewska, 2019. "Gender wage gap in the workplace: Does the age of the firm matter?," IBS Working Papers 01/2019, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    10. Benjamin Bennett & Isil Erel & Léa H. Stern & Zexi Wang, 2020. "Paid Leave Pays Off: The Effects of Paid Family Leave on Firm Performance," NBER Working Papers 27788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Jonathan F Schulz & Christian Thöni, 2016. "Overconfidence and Career Choice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    12. Cemal Eren Arbatlı & Quamrul H. Ashraf & Oded Galor & Marc Klemp, 2020. "Diversity and Conflict," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 727-797, March.
    13. Pekkarinen, Tuomas, 2015. "Gender differences in behaviour under competitive pressure: Evidence on omission patterns in university entrance examinations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 94-110.
    14. Nadine Chlaß & Peter G. Moffatt, 2017. "Giving in Dictator Games - Experimenter Demand Effect or Preference over the Rules of the Game?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    15. Yuval Mazar & Uri Zilber, 2019. "Brothers vs. Sisters: The Effect of Siblings' Gender on an Individual's Labor Market Performance," Bank of Israel Working Papers 2019.16, Bank of Israel.
    16. Estefanía Galván, 2022. "Gender Identity and Quality of Employment," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 409-436, April.
    17. Jaanika Meriküll & Maryna Tverdostup, 2020. "The Gap That Survived The Transition: The Gender Wage Gap Over Three Decades In Estonia," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series 127, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    18. Henrik Kleven & Camille Landais & Jakob Egholt Søgaard, 2021. "Does Biology Drive Child Penalties? Evidence from Biological and Adoptive Families," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 183-198, June.
    19. Claussen, Jörg & Czibor, Eszter & van Praag, Mirjam C., 2015. "Women Do Not Play Their Aces: The Consequences of Shying Away," IZA Discussion Papers 9612, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwrup:138de. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.