Whowill lead? Evidence on leadership exposure and the gender gap in aspirations

Last registered on November 10, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Whowill lead? Evidence on leadership exposure and the gender gap in aspirations
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017194
Initial registration date
November 06, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
November 10, 2025, 9:35 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Copenhagen Business School

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-11-06
End date
2026-08-01
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
There is limited prior evidence on how to close the gender gap in leadership aspirations, which emerges already in adolescence (Alan et al. 2020), persists among university graduates and entry-level employees, and deepens further over careers (Azmat et al., 2025; Haegele, 2024).

This motivates our research question and intervention. The question we try to answer is: Can individual leadership aspirations be exogenously stimulated by randomly assigning individuals to a leadership role on a team that has to solve an abstract collaborative task requiring both communication and decision-making. The channel through which this random leadership experience may stimulate willingness to lead is through making own leadership preferences and ability salient to the randomly selected individual, as well as emphasizing typical elements of a leadership role, namely a specific title, certain responsibilities, some private information, and economic incentives.

While leadership tasks in the workplace are typically not randomly assigned, but are rather a strong signal and predictor of future promotions (Bircan et al, 2024), we investigate if these leadership experiences in and of themselves stimulate individuals' willingness to take on leadership roles. We hypothesize that such leadership experiences may be particularly relevant to groups of employees who are underrepresented among managers, and as such have fewer role models, leading to uncertainty and lower confidence in own fit and skills to lead.

Specifically, we conduct an RCT on university students, a large share of which business students, expecting to work in private sector companies after graduation. The RCT is framed as a training session on teamwork and collaboration, centered around playing two rounds of a newly developed multiplayer online game in groups of four at the experimental lab of University of Copenhagen.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Cairo, Sofie. 2025. "Whowill lead? Evidence on leadership exposure and the gender gap in aspirations." AEA RCT Registry. November 10. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17194-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We conduct an RCT on university students. The RCT is framed as a training session on teamwork and collaboration, centered around playing two rounds of a newly developed multiplayer online game in groups of four at a gaming center in Copenhagen.

In round one of gaming, we randomly assign group leaders who are granted a title, certain responsibilities, access to private information, and individual performance-based economic incentives. After round one, preferences for playing the leader in round two are elicited. Individuals are asked if they are willing to be the leader of the team (1), Would accept to be promoted to leader (2), are indifferent between being a leader or a team member (3), or prefer to be a team member (4). Preference elicitation is incentivized and binding. Participants are informed that teams will be reshuffled and that within each new team, the participant expressing the stronger leadership preference (equivalent to a lower number) will be promoted with ties being settled randomly, and that individuals selecting the fourth option will never be asked to lead. That is, based on their expressed preference, participants are put first, second, or third inline to be the leader of their new team. In the predefined round two groups, the group member with stronger leadership preferences is then promoted to be the leader in accordance with instructions, and round two, which is identifcal to round one, is played.

The experimental data are combined with pre-elicited measures of skills and preferences for leadership and gaming. Comparing willingness to lead among randomly selected leaders and randomly selected team members allows us to derive the causal effect of treatment on leadership preferences.
Intervention Start Date
2025-11-13
Intervention End Date
2026-08-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The key outcomes that we study are share of treated (randomly exposed to a leadership experience in round one of gaming) relative to controls (team members in round one of gaming) who express a willingness to lead in round two of computer gaming. Also, we measure the quality of leaders who are promoted after a leadership experience relative to leaders who are promoted after a team member experience.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Leadership preferences of treated and controls are elicited in a midsurvey between round one and round two of computer gaming. The quality of a leader is defined by team performance in round two of gaming. The quality can be measured for the full team including the leader, and for the full team excluding the leader to check whether the leader enhances the team beyond his/her own contribution to team perfomance,

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary outcomes relate to the mechanisms behind leadership quality and leadership preferences. Generally we analyze communication and collaboration metrics and transcriped team communication data. These include: Share of talk time, number of interruptions, share of time spent actively listening and more.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct an RCT on university students. The RCT is framed as a training session on teamwork and collaboration, centered around playing two rounds of a newly developed multiplayer online game in groups of four at a gaming center in Copenhagen.

In round one of gaming, we randomly assign group leaders who are granted a title, certain responsibilities, access to private information, and individual performance-based economic incentives. After round one, preferences for playing the leader in round two are elicited. Individuals are asked if they are willing to be the leader of the team (1), Would accept to be promoted to leader (2), are indifferent between being a leader or a team member (3), or prefer to be a team member (4). Preference elicitation is incentivized and binding. Participants are informed that teams will be reshuffled and that within each new team, the participant expressing the stronger leadership preference (equivalent to a lower number) will be promoted with ties being settled randomly, and that individuals selecting the fourth option will never be asked to lead. That is, based on their expressed preference, participants are put first, second, or third inline to be the leader of their new team. In the predefined round two groups, the group member with stronger leadership preferences is then promoted to be the leader in accordance with instructions, and round two, which is identifcal to round one, is played.

The experimental data are combined with pre-elicited measures of skills and preferences for leadership and gaming. Comparing willingness to lead among randomly selected leaders and randomly selected team members allows us to derive the causal effect of treatment on leadership preferences.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
For round one of gaming, the randomization is based on allocation of random numbers (Excel) to participants, and then choosing the 5 men with highest numbers as team leaders, and the 5 women with highest numbers as team leaders, and then distributing the rest randomly into teams starting from the participant with the highest number. For round one of gaming, again random numbers are drawn and individuals are distributed into teams starting from the highest number.
Randomization Unit
For the first round of gaming, we randomly select 5 male group leaders and 5 female group leaders, and then distribute the rest of the students as team members to their teams. Next, we randomly form round two teams, but we can only assign roles after eliciting leadership preferences in the midsurvey. The team member who has stronger leadership preferences is promoted to leader.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
The treatment is not clustered.
Sample size: planned number of observations
I am enrolling 520 students in total, that it 130 teams of four participants each. I randomly pick 65 male leaders and 65 female leaders.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
The treatment arm has 130 observations, whereas the control arm has 390 observations. When separating by gender, the treatment arm for women (men) has 65 observations, while the control arm has at least 65 women (men).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The minimum detectable effect size for treated vs. untreated is approximately 12%, when we have 130 treated and 390 untreated individuals, while the minimum detectable effect size for treated vs. untreated by gender, is approximately 20%, when we have 65 treated women and at least 65 controls. These power calculations are based on alpha=5%, power=80% and baseline probability of being willing to lead of around 20%. More details are provided in the preanalysis plan.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
CBS Ethics Council for case 25-018
IRB Approval Date
2025-10-26
IRB Approval Number
25-018
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Preanalysis plan

MD5: 130b85c2ddf21f0c6eb6772fa0daf867

SHA1: dd2c1a5cba1bc2b0cc83a01b8c5df3824d7458aa

Uploaded At: November 06, 2025