GENDER DIFFERENCES IN BUSINESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION ‐MAKING: IMPLICATIONS FOR GENDER EQUALITY Peter Preglej School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana peterpreglej94@gmail.com Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 49 The e ffec ti veness of work largely depends on the employees and their decision ‐making abili ti es. Research indicates that gender di fferences in decision ‐making can influence management prac ti ces, organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness, and overall performance outcomes. Although women and men possess equal intellectual capabili ti es and should be treated equally, their decision ‐making approaches o ft en di ffer, o ffering complementary strengths. These di fferences underscore the importance of viewing gender ‐based decision ‐making styles as enriching rather than hierarchical and highlight why achieving gender equality remains cri ti cal. To op ti mize decision ‐making within individuals and groups in business and organiza ti onal se tti ngs, it is essen ti al to understand both the advantages and limita ti ons associated with the de ‐ cision ‐making processes of each gender. Based on an extensive review of scholarly books and ar ti cles, along with em ‐ pirical data collected through the Melbourne Decision Making Ques ti onnaire completed by 133 par ti cipants, this study first analyses and discusses gender di fferences in individual decision ‐making within business and organiza ti onal con ‐ texts. This analysis provides the founda ti on for examining how the gender composi ti on of groups influences group de ‐ cision ‐making, highligh ti ng the importance of promo ti ng gender equality in organiza ti onal decision ‐making processes —an issue of growing significance in the developed world. Keywords: Gender, Decision ‐Making, Gender Equality, Business, Organiza ti ons Abstract Research suggests that decision ‐making is influ ‐ enced by a variety of factors, including cogni ti ve and social elements that vary between individuals (Halpern, 1997). Neuroscien ti fic studies have high ‐ lighted how structural di fferences in the brains of men and women can lead to di fferent approaches to decision ‐making, especially under complex or high ‐stakes condi ti ons (Haier et al., 2005). Gender has been shown to play a significant role in shaping decision ‐making styles, with men and women ex ‐ hibi ti ng dis ti nct pa tt erns in cogni ti ve processing (Benko & Pelster, 2013). While the literature under ‐ scores the importance of gender in decision ‐mak ‐ ing, it remains fragmented, par ti cularly in how these dynamics operate within organiza ti onal se tti ngs. Despite the growing body of research on gen ‐ der di fferences in decision ‐making, there remains a lack of comprehensive studies examining the inter ‐ 1 INTRODUCTION Decision ‐making is a fundamental cogni ti ve pro ‐ cess that individuals engage in con ti nuously. On aver ‐ age, adults make approximately 35,000 conscious decisions per day (Sahakian & Labuze tt a, 2013), with decisions in business and organiza ti onal contexts shap ‐ ing leadership, strategy, and performance outcomes. Research suggests that individuals make an average of 122 decisions per day (Michaelides, 2022). Under ‐ standing how decision ‐making is influenced by gender is crucial for improving organiza ti onal prac ti ces, par ‐ ti cularly in the context of increasing demand for gen ‐ der equality in leadership and decision ‐making roles. This paper researches the rela ti onship between gen ‐ der and decision ‐making in business and organiza ti ons, exploring how gender influences decision ‐making pro ‐ cesses and the importance of achieving gender equal ‐ ity in these domains (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Vol. 14, No. 2, 49 ‐63 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2025.v14n02a04 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 50 Peter Preglej: Gender Di fferences in Business and Organiza ti onal Decision ‐Making: Implica ti ons for Gender Equality sec ti on of gender and decision ‐making specifically within business and organiza ti onal contexts. Exis ti ng literature o ft en overlooks how gender composi ti on in teams influences collec ti ve decision ‐making and fails to explore why gender equality in decision ‐ making is vital for organiza ti onal success (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Apesteguia, Azmat, & Iriberri, 2012). Without addressing these gaps, organiza ti ons may miss opportuni ti es to enhance team dynamics and op ti mize decision ‐making processes, poten ti ally lim ‐ i ti ng their performance and inclusivity (Hoogen ‐ doorn et al., 2013). As a result, organiza ti ons may not fully capitalize on the diverse perspec ti ves that gender ‐diverse teams o ffer, which could ul ti mately a ffect their overall e ffec ti veness. The study builds on previous research using the Melbourne Decision Making Ques ti onnaire (MDMQ) to explore gender di fferences in self ‐esteem and de ‐ cision ‐coping strategies, with a focus specifically on under ‐researched decision ‐coping pa tt erns vigilance, hypervigilance, buck ‐passing, and procras ti na ti on, in business se tti ngs. It challenges the assump ti on that higher self ‐esteem leads to be tt er decision ‐making (Baumeister et al., 2003). The research advocates for inclusive leadership evalua ti ons, emphasizing the value of diverse decision ‐making styles for organiza ‐ ti onal success (Bouckenooghe et al., 2007) and o ffers insights into gender’s impact on decision styles among younger professionals, with implica ti ons for leadership and business strategies. The main aim of this paper is to explore the role of gender in these decision ‐making dynamics within business and organiza ti onal se tti ngs. It inves ti gates gender influences at both the individual and group levels, specifically analysing how gender shapes de ‐ cision ‐making styles and how the gender composi ‐ ti on of teams a ffects collec ti ve decision ‐making processes (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Moreover, this paper focuses on the impor ‐ tance of gender equality in business for promo ti ng inclusive and e ffec ti ve prac ti ces. Beyond the be ‐ havioural e ffect of gender on decision ‐making, there is an ethical need to address why gender equality ma tt ers. Gender, like birthplace or family back ‐ ground, is an unchangeable factor that influences how individuals are treated (Voices of Youth, 2011). Di fferences between men and women should not jus ti fy unequal treatment. Gender equality ensures fairness by providing equal opportuni ti es to con ‐ tribute and lead based on merit, driving inclusivity and performance in organiza ti ons (Mackow ‐ McGuire, 2016; Naidu & Naidu, n.d.). First research ques ti on (RQ1): How does gender af ‐ fect decision ‐making in business and organiza ti ons at the individual level? Second research ques ti on (RQ2): How does gender composi ti on influence group decision ‐making in business and organiza ti ons? Third research ques ti on (RQ3): Why does gender equality in decision ‐making in business and organi ‐ za ti ons ma tt er? Research Ques ti on 4 (RQ4): Do gender ‐based di ffer ‐ ences exist in decision making in business and orga ‐ niza ti onal se tti ngs? Answering these ques ti ons o ffers both theoret ‐ ical and prac ti cal insights. This paper contributes to improving decision ‐making e fficiency in business and organiza ti onal contexts. Theore ti cally, it ad ‐ vances the understanding of gender as a cogni ti ve and social factor in decision ‐making (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Halpern, 2012). Prac ti cally, it supports the op ‐ ti miza ti on of decision ‐making processes in busi ‐ nesses and organiza ti ons, where team dynamics and inclusivity are increasingly important (Bear & Woolley, 2011; Catalyst, 2020). Recognizing and leveraging gender ‐based strengths can create more balanced, resilient, and e ffec ti ve management of professional rela ti onships (McKinsey & Company, 2020; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Buljan Šiber et al., 2023). 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Decision ‐making is one of the most complex and cri ti cal cogni ti ve processes, especially in orga ‐ niza ti onal and business contexts. It is shaped by cog ‐ ni ti ve, social, and situa ti onal factors, with gender emerging as a key variable in how individuals ap ‐ proach and execute decisions. Research suggests that men and women o ft en adopt di fferent strate ‐ gies and behaviours, a ffec ti ng individual and group Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 51 outcomes. Organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness relies heav ‐ ily on employee contribu ti ons, and decision ‐making e fficiency can vary based on gender ‐related factors. Therefore, understanding gender di fferences in de ‐ cision ‐making and their impact on business perfor ‐ mance has become an important area of research (Haier et al., 2005; Minasyan & Tovmasyan, 2020). Neuroscien ti fic research has iden ti fied notable func ti onal and structural di fferences between male and female brains. For instance, women tend to ex ‐ hibit a significantly greater volume of white ma tt er, which facilitates integra ti ve thinking across dis ‐ tributed neural networks, whereas men typically demonstrate greater concentra ti ons of grey ma tt er, associated with localized informa ti on processing and task ‐specific func ti ons (Haier et al., 2005). These di fferences do not imply varia ti on in overall intelligence or capability but suggest that men and women may employ dis ti nct cogni ti ve strategies in problem ‐solving and decision ‐making. Within the dynamic and o ft en rela ti onally complex environ ‐ ments of modern organiza ti ons, such varia ti on may manifest in di fferen ti ated yet complementary deci ‐ sion ‐making pa tt erns. At the group level, gender composi ti on has been shown to influence team processes and outcomes. Empirical findings suggest that gender ‐diverse teams o ft en demonstrate enhanced problem ‐solving, crea ti v ‐ ity, and decision quality—par ti cularly when interper ‐ sonal dynamics are managed inclusively (Bear & Woolley, 2011). Nonetheless, the benefits of equality are con ti ngent upon the presence of equity and mu ‐ tual respect, underscoring the importance of not only recognizing gender di fferences but also ensuring equal opportunity and voice in decision ‐making contexts. Beyond cogni ti ve and organiza ti onal consider ‐ a ti ons, the issue of gender in decision ‐making also intersects with broader ethical and social concerns. Individuals do not choose immutable characteris ti cs such as their biological sex, the socio ‐cultural envi ‐ ronment into which they are born, or their early fa ‐ milial circumstances. However, these unchosen factors shape how individuals are perceived and treated across their lifespan (Voices of Youth, 2011). In this regard, gender equality in decision ‐making is not merely a ques ti on of performance or cogni ti ve style but also one of fairness and jus ti ce. While acknowledging that men and women may exhibit di fferent tendencies or preferences in decision ‐making, it is essen ti al to emphasize that such di fferences should not be interpreted as indi ‐ cators of superiority or inferiority. Rather, they re ‐ flect the diversity of human cogni ti on and social experience. Gender equality does not suggest that men and women are iden ti cal, but rather that both are of equal value and should be a fforded the same opportuni ti es, responsibili ti es, and rewards in both private and public spheres (Mackow ‐McGuire, 2016; Naidu & Naidu, n.d.). In organiza ti onal decision ‐mak ‐ ing, the unique strengths of both genders should be regarded as mutually reinforcing, contribu ti ng to more e ffec ti ve and inclusive managerial prac ti ces. 2.1 Gender and individual decision ‐making in business and organiza ti ons Eagly and colleagues conducted several studies on gender and leadership. One such analysis (Eagly, Karau & Makhijani, 1995) found no significant di ffer ‐ ences in overall leadership e ffec ti veness, though women excelled in less tradi ti onally masculine roles and men in more masculine ‐defined ones. A later study (Eagly, Johannesen ‐Schmidt & van Engen, 2003) reported that men tend to be more asser ti ve and compe titi ve, while women are generally more suppor ti ve, empathe ti c, and rela ti onal in workplace decision ‐making. Caprino (2016) similarly found no evidence that women rely more on intui ti on; in 12 of 32 studies, women favoured data ‐driven ap ‐ proaches, while men leaned more on intui ti on. The remaining studies showed no significant gender dif ‐ ferences (Caprino, 2016). Another study by Muyinudeen and Elsadig (2008) in Malaysia found that male managers were more direc ti ve, strategic, and risk ‐taking, while fe ‐ male managers favoured democra ti c, par ti cipa ti ve, and consensus ‐driven decision ‐making. Malaysian male entrepreneurs also showed higher risk toler ‐ ance than females. The 2009 McKinsey Report (McKinsey & Company, 2010) highlighted women’s people ‐oriented leadership style, characterized by role modelling and decisiveness. Similarly, Zenger and Folkman (2012) found women scored higher in competencies like ini ti a ti ve, honesty, self ‐develop ‐ ment, and results orienta ti on. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 52 Peter Preglej: Gender Di fferences in Business and Organiza ti onal Decision ‐Making: Implica ti ons for Gender Equality Minasyan and Tovmasyan (2020) found that women tend to make decisions in groups, while men o ft en decide alone. Men’s decision ‐making at ‐ tributes include analy ti cal thinking, confidence, and compe titi veness, whereas women are more inclined towards intui ti ve thinking, consul ti ng, and interper ‐ sonal sensi ti vity. Women in leadership face chal ‐ lenges like discrimina ti on, lack of obedience, and stereotypes that hinder their career advancement, such as the belief that women should priori ti ze home life or cannot succeed without a man. These stereotypes contribute to barriers to women’s pro ‐ fessional growth (Minasyan and Tovmasyan, 2020). Gorman (2005) examined gender dispari ti es in hiring at U.S. law firms, finding that gender ‐stereo ‐ typical traits in hiring criteria and the gender of de ‐ cision ‐makers influenced hiring outcomes. When masculine traits were emphasized, fewer women were hired, while feminine traits increased female representa ti on, especially in entry ‐level roles (Gor ‐ man, 2005, pp. 720–722). Lateral hires were less af ‐ fected, likely due to their greater responsibili ti es. Female hiring partners hired more women when women were underrepresented among partners, but this e ffect declined as gender balance improved (Gorman, 2005, pp. 722–723). These pa tt erns re ‐ flect how gender stereotypes and in ‐group prefer ‐ ences shape percep ti ons of candidate fit. Kanter (1993) supports this, showing that underrepresen ‐ ta ti on reinforces tradi ti onal gender roles in male ‐ dominated se tti ngs. Levin et al. (2005) showed that both female and male par ti cipants in hiring and firing decisions were more likely to hire candidates of their own sex, a finding consistent with Gorman (2005) and Bosak and Scezsny (2011). Gender bias was observed mainly in the final decision ‐making stage. In con ‐ trast, Petersen et al. (2000) argued that gender does not influence hiring decisions, sugges ti ng that age and educa ti on account for all gender di fferences. Similarly, Marsden et al. (1993) found no significant gender di fferences in organiza ti onal commitment. Janis and Mann (1977) iden ti fied decisional conflict as a key source of stress that can impair de ‐ cision quality. This stress typically stems from two sources: the risk of personal, material, or social loss, and the fear of damaging one’s self ‐esteem or rep ‐ uta ti on. The MDMQ, grounded in decisional conflict theory (Mann et al., 1997), includes two parts: MDMQ I assesses self ‐esteem, while MDMQ II eval ‐ uates four decision ‐coping pa tt erns (Vigilance, Hy ‐ pervigilance, Buck ‐Passing, and Procras ti na ti on). These pa tt erns reflect di fferent ways individuals manage decision ‐related stress, with each decision ‐ maker relying on all pa tt erns to varying degrees de ‐ pending on gender and factors (Janis & Mann, 1977; Mann et al., 1997). Related to exis ti ng research about gender dif ‐ ferences in self ‐esteem and decision ‐coping pat ‐ terns measured by MDMQ, Kling, Hyde, Showers, and Buswell (1999) conducted two studies on global self ‐esteem and found a slight di fference in favour of men. Bleidorn et al. (2015) found men consis ‐ tently report higher self ‐esteem than women across all ages. Gen ti le et al. (2009) found men scored higher in athle ti cism, self ‐sa ti sfac ti on, and appear ‐ ance, while women scored higher in moral ‐ethical and behavioural conduct self ‐esteem, with no di ffer ‐ ences in academic, family, or social domains. Schwalbe and Staples (1991) found that both gen ‐ ders rely most on reflected appraisals for self ‐es ‐ teem, but men priori ti ze social comparisons, whereas women place greater value on feedback from others. According to previous studies, some gender dif ‐ ferences can be expected in the decision ‐coping pat ‐ terns in the MDMQ. Laroche et al. (2000) found that men tend to be mission ‐ and task ‐oriented when seeking in ‐store informa ti on, while women are more discovery ‐oriented shoppers. As such, females may rely more on vigilant decision ‐coping pa tt erns than non ‐vigilant ones. Bouckenooghe et al. (2007) showed that women tend to rely less on procras ti ‐ na ti on compared to men. Yan et al. (2018) found that women are more likely to rely on hypervigi ‐ lance and buck ‐passing. Lizárraga et al. (2007) found women are more influenced by the environment and concerned about decision consequences, while men are goal ‐ oriented, under pressure, and more mo ti vated to decide. Delaney, Strough, Parker, and Bruin (2015) suggested men o ft en use an a ffec ti ve decisional style based on emo ti ons, however, Lizárraga et al. (2007) argued that both genders logically evaluate Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 53 alterna ti ves. Gorodetzky, Sahakian, Robbins, and Er ‐ sche (2011) found no significant gender di fferences in decision ‐making, and Filipe et al. (2020) showed women scored higher in hypervigilance, in line with the findings of Lizárraga et al. (2007). 2.2 Gender di fferences in group decision ‐making in business and organiza ti ons Although most research on gender di fferences in decision ‐making focuses on individuals, decisions in modern economies o ft en occur in teams, such as in business partnerships, boards, and academic re ‐ search teams. This makes it di fficult to extrapolate in ‐ dividual ‐level findings to group dynamics. Apesteguia et al. (2012) studied the e ffect of gender composi ti on in teams on economic performance. Croson and Gneezy (2009) found that women tend to be more risk ‐averse and have more situa ti onally specific social preferences, while also being more averse to compe ‐ titi on. Women are generally more focused on pro ‐ mo ti ng inclusiveness and maintaining conversa ti ons (Van Vugt, Cremer & Janssen, 2007). Some findings may reflect women distancing themselves from tra ‐ di ti onally masculine values (Bosson & Michniewicz, 2013; Nikolova & Lamberton, 2016). In an online business game, Apesteguia et al. (2012) found that all ‐female teams performed poorly, par ti cularly in R&D investment and pricing strategies. The highest ‐performing team included two men and one woman. Women ‐led teams also allocated more resources toward social sustainability ini ti a ti ves. Dufwenberg and Muren (2006) showed that female ‐majority groups tend to be more gener ‐ ous and egalitarian, with the most generous teams being those composed of two men and one woman. Muller ‐Kahle and Lewellyn (2011) found that gender ‐ diverse boards were less likely to engage in subprime lending, sugges ti ng that diversity leads to more cau ‐ ti ous evalua ti ons of risky strategic decisions. Om ‐ baba (2016) found that gender ‐diverse boards also performed be tt er, as indicated by a posi ti ve rela ti on ‐ ship with firm performance. Ibanez, Czermak, and Su tt er (2009) examined how gender and mild ti me pressure a ffect group de ‐ cision ‐making. They found that women in all ‐female groups searched for longer periods and were less likely to reach the op ti mal stopping point. Interest ‐ ingly, mixed ‐gender groups exhibited decision ‐making behaviours similar to all ‐male groups, sugges ti ng that women may adapt to male preferences or defer deci ‐ sion ‐making in these contexts (Ibanez et al., 2009). 2.3 On the importance of gender equality in decision ‐making Privileges are o ft en invisible to those who bene ‐ fit from them, crea ti ng challenges in advoca ti ng for equal opportuni ti es. For example, a white woman may only iden ti fy with her gender, while a Black woman’s experience is shaped by both race and gen ‐ der . This highlights systemic disadvantages that must be addressed for fairness, though those with privilege may find it di fficult to recognize (Kimmel, 2015). Women remain underrepresented in leadership roles, with the Global Gender Gap Report 2024 show ‐ ing only 68.5% of the gap has been closed. At the cur ‐ rent pace, gender equality in leadership won’t be achieved un ti l 134 years from now, well beyond the 2030 SDG target, underscoring the need for more ef ‐ fec ti ve policies (World Economic Forum, 2024). The posi ti ve e ffects of gender equality in leader ‐ ship are increasingly recognized. Gender ‐diverse leadership teams bring diverse perspec ti ves and skills that foster be tt er decision ‐making, innova ti on, and business performance. Studies such as those by Nolan, Moran, and Kotschwar (2016) demonstrate that companies with higher female representa ti on, parti cularly those with at least 30% women in deci ‐ sion ‐making roles, experience significant increases in profitability. Moreover, gender ‐diverse teams im ‐ prove conflict resolu ti on, enhance crea ti vity, and broaden perspec ti ves, which contribute to a be tt er corporate image and business outcomes (Rose, 2007; Van der Walt, Ingley, Shergill & Townsend, 2006). Despite concerns that gender quotas may harm performance by placing less ‐qualified women in leadership roles, research suggests otherwise. Gen ‐ der quotas help mi ti gate sta ti s ti cal discrimina ti on, allowing a more diverse pool of candidates to com ‐ pete for top posi ti ons. Profeta (2017) argues that such policies increase e fficiency and the overall quality within organiza ti ons. While some studies suggest women’s risk ‐aversion might nega ti vely im ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 54 pact stock market performance (Ahern & Di tt mar, 2012; Matsa & Miller, 2013; Adams & Ragunathan, 2015), others, such as Ferrari et al. (2016), show that gender ‐diverse leadership improves short ‐term stock market outcomes, reducing vola ti lity and ben ‐ efi ti ng businesses and the economy. 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study adopts a quan ti ta ti ve research design to empirically inves ti gate and address the specified research ques ti ons concerning gender di fferences in decision ‐making in businesses and organiza ti ons. Pri ‐ mary data were collected using the MDMQ, a vali ‐ dated psychometric instrument designed to assess individual decision ‐making styles (Mann et al., 1997). The quan ti ta ti ve analysis focuses on iden ti fying gen ‐ der ‐related pa tt erns in self ‐esteem and the tendency to rely on four dis ti nct decision coping strategies. A non ‐probability sampling method, specifically a mix of convenience and voluntary response sam ‐ pling, was employed, resul ti ng in a final sample of 133 respondents (McCombes, 2019; Laerd Disserta ‐ ti on, n.d.). The collected data were processed and analysed to iden ti fy gender ‐related pa tt erns in self ‐ esteem and tendencies to rely on each of the four decision ‐coping pa tt erns. This empirical approach al ‐ lows for the explora ti on of nuanced di fferences in how male and female par ti cipants navigate decision ‐ making processes, providing a basis for evalua ti ng the broader implica ti ons of gender equality and di ‐ versity in business and organiza ti onal se tti ngs (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Simultaneously, a com ‐ prehensive review of relevant literature was con ‐ ducted to develop the theore ti cal framework and support research ques ti ons development, and in line with methodological standards, it is regarded as part of the study’s conceptual founda ti on rather than a qualita ti ve research method (Boote & Beile, 2005). 3.1 Instruments The MDMQ was used to assess par ti cipants’ de ‐ cision ‐coping pa tt erns. In addi ti on to the original MDMQ, the ques ti onnaire included demographic ques ti ons about gender, age, and occupa ti onal sta ‐ tus, though only gender was used in the analysis. The MDMQ consisted of two parts: MDMQ I was used to measure self ‐esteem, and MDMQ II to eval ‐ uate four decision ‐coping pa tt erns: Vigilance, Hy ‐ pervigilance, Buck ‐Passing, and Procras ti na ti on (Janis & Mann, 1977; Mann et al., 1997). 3.2 Sample The MDMQ (Mann et al., 1997) was adminis ‐ tered online to inves ti gate poten ti al gender di ffer ‐ ences in self ‐esteem and decision ‐making coping styles. The survey link was distributed through vari ‐ ous social media pla tf orms and shared via student socie ti es a ffiliated with the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. The target popula ti on in ‐ cluded both current students and recent graduates from the faculty. Data collec ti on was conducted over a two ‐week period, from July 7 to July 21, 2020. A total of 133 individuals completed the survey, with 8 excluded as age, resul ti ng in a final sample of 125 par ti cipants (69 females, 56 males) aged 20–30 (M = 24.77, SD = 2.35). The sample included 57 stu ‐ dents, 17 job seekers, and 51 employed individuals. Ensuring homogeneity in terms of age is important to reduce its known influence on decision ‐making (Löckenho ff, 2011; Delaney et al., 2015; Mann et al., 1989; Blanchard ‐Fields et al., 2004; Bouckenooghe et al., 2007; Kornilova et al., 2018; Glen, 2020). Nonetheless, given the complexity of decision ‐mak ‐ ing, other influencing factors may not have been fully controlled (Soane & Nicholson, 2016). 4 RESULTS The empirical analysis addresses the first re ‐ search ques ti on on gender di fferences in individual decision ‐making. It examines which gender reports higher self ‐esteem and greater reliance on each of Janis and Mann’s (1977) four decision ‐coping pat ‐ terns. As decisional conflict theory links decision ‐re ‐ lated stress to decision quality, the findings o ffer insight into how men and women di ffer in coping with the stress inherent in decision ‐making. One thing should be noted before analysing the results. When analysing gender di fferences in deci ‐ sion ‐making styles, we are looking at tendencies, not absolutes (Benko and Pelster, 2013). Table 1 Peter Preglej: Gender Di fferences in Business and Organiza ti onal Decision ‐Making: Implica ti ons for Gender Equality Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 55 below shows the mean scores of females, males, and the total sample on the MDMQ. On average, women exhibited lower self ‐esteem (8.32) com ‐ pared to men (9.41). To sta ti s ti cally assess gender di fferences in self ‐ esteem, both female (n=69) and male (n=56) sam ‐ ple distribu ti ons were first compared. Since almost all the most popular parametric tests rely on the as ‐ sump ti on of a certain kind of distribu ti on of data (usually normal distribu ti on), first the distribu ti on of data in the sample was analysed. Both female (n=69) and male (n=56) samples exhibited non ‐nor ‐ mal distribu ti ons, requiring the use of non ‐paramet ‐ ric tests (XLSTAT, 2020b; Zaiontz, 2020). To assess gender di fferences in self ‐esteem, the Mann ‐Whitney U test was employed, suitable for comparing two independent groups when the de ‐ pendent variable is ordinal or con ti nuous and data are not normally distributed (Formplus, n.d.; Laerd Sta ti s ti cs, n.d.b). Prior to applying this test, the Kol ‐ mogorov ‐Smirnov two ‐sample test was conducted to determine if the distribu ti ons of self ‐esteem scores for females and males were iden ti cal (Srid ‐ haran, 2015). This non ‐parametric test evaluates the null hypothesis that two samples have the same dis ‐ tribu ti on, making it appropriate for comparing dis ‐ tribu ti ons without assuming normality (Laerd Sta ti s ti cs, n.d.a). Visual representa ti ons of the dis ‐ tribu ti ons suggest that both distribu ti ons are skewed to the right. The Two ‐sample Kolmogorov ‐ Smirnov (two ‐tailed) test at a 5% significance level in Excel (using XLSTAT) was conducted. The Kolmogorov ‐Smirnov test results indicate a significant di fference between the self ‐esteem dis ‐ tribu ti ons of the female and male sample. The com ‐ puted D sta ti s ti c and corresponding p ‐value suggest that the distribu ti ons are not iden ti cal. Given that the p ‐value is below the 0.05 significance level Table 1: Mean scores and standard devia ti on of females, males, and total sample on MDMQ Table 2: Summary sta ti s ti cs of female and male self ‐esteem sample Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 56 (alpha = 0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected, con ‐ cluding that the distribu ti ons of the two samples are significantly di fferent (XLSTAT, 2020a). Therefore, running the Mann ‐Whitney U test to determine whether the two groups’ medians are dif ‐ ferent would not be appropriate, given the di ffer ‐ ences in the distribu ti ons of the two samples. However, the Mann–Whitney U test was employed to compare the mean ranks of the two groups (Laerd Sta ti s ti cs, n.d.; McDonald, 2014). The key point about mean ranks is that the group with the lowest mean rank contains the highest number of lower scores, while the group with the highest mean rank contains the greatest number of higher scores (Field, 2000). The Mann–Whitney U test was conducted at a 5% significance level. Given that the computed p ‐value was below the significance level (alpha = 0.05), the null hypothesis was rejected and the alterna ti ve hy ‐ pothesis accepted, indica ti ng that the mean ranks of the two groups di ffer, sugges ti ng gender di fferences in self ‐esteem levels as measured by the MDMQ I. Due to unequal variances between the female and male groups, interpre ti ng the Mann–Whitney U test results requires cau ti on. While the test does not assume equal variances, it may not accurately detect di fferences in distribu ti ons when variances di ffer significantly. In such cases, alterna ti ve tests are recommended for comparing variances, how ‐ ever many of these tests are highly sensi ti ve to non ‐ normal distribu ti ons, making them less frequently used. Levene’s test is known to be less sensi ti ve to departures from normal distribu ti ons than the Bartle tt test. Unfortunately, Levene’s test requires that the test variable be con ti nuous rather than or ‐ dinal or nominal, which is not the case in our study. Therefore, findings from the Mann–Whitney U test should be considered with this limita ti on in mind (Laerd, n.d.a; SPSS Tutorials, 2020; Sta ti s ti cs Solu ‐ ti ons, 2020; McDonald, 2014). The same procedure was applied to test for gender di fferences in the four decision ‐coping pat ‐ terns. The Kolmogorov ‐Smirnov test indicated that the female and male vigilance samples follow the same distribu ti on. The Mann ‐Whitney U test re ‐ vealed no di fferences in the medians between the female and male vigilance samples, meaning there are no gender di fferences in the tendency to rely on vigilance as a decision ‐coping pa tt ern. For hypervig ‐ ilance, the Mann ‐Whitney U test showed that the mean ranks in the female and male samples are dif ‐ ferent, indica ti ng that there are gender di fferences in the tendency to rely on hypervigilance. Regarding buck ‐passing, the Mann ‐Whitney U test suggested gender di fferences in the tendency to rely on buck ‐ passing. For procras ti na ti on, the Mann ‐Whitney U test indicated no gender di fferences in the tendency to resort to procras ti na ti on. Related to RQ1, the results show that women scored higher on all four decision ‐coping styles, es ‐ pecially vigilance, indica ti ng clear gender ‐based dif ‐ ferences in individual decision ‐making styles. Regarding RQ2, although group decision ‐making was not directly measured here, the complementary strengths observed between genders at the individ ‐ ual level suggest mixed ‐gender groups could benefit from diverse approaches. For RQ3, the di fferences in self ‐esteem and coping pa tt erns highlight the impor ‐ tance of balanced gender representa ti on, as diverse decision ‐making approaches can improve inclusivity and e ffec ti veness in organiza ti onal decision ‐making. The results confirm H1. The results show clear gender di fferences: women have lower self ‐esteem and higher use of all four decision ‐coping styles than men. However, the findings do not indicate that either gender’s decision ‐making style is superior. Instead, they reflect di fferent but equally valid ways of coping with decisions in organiza ti onal se tti ngs. These di ffer ‐ ences highlight the importance of recognizing diverse decision ‐making approaches rather than judging ef ‐ fec ti veness based on gender. Understanding these varia ti ons can help organiza ti ons support more inclu ‐ sive and adap ti ve decision environments. 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study inves ti gates the rela ti onship be ‐ tween gender and decision ‐making in business and organiza ti onal se tti ngs, advancing that neither gen ‐ der is inherently superior in decision ‐making; rather, men and women approach decisions di fferently, with complementary outcomes. These di fferences should not be viewed as hierarchical but as indica ‐ ti ve of various perspec ti ves that can improve deci ‐ sion ‐making processes. Peter Preglej: Gender Di fferences in Business and Organiza ti onal Decision ‐Making: Implica ti ons for Gender Equality Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 57 Women showed higher mean scores than men on all four decision ‐coping pa tt erns. Interes ti ngly, they relied more on vigilance, the only pa tt ern iden ‐ ti fied by Mann et al. (1997) as enabling ra ti onal and sound decision ‐making. This indicates that, as deci ‐ sion ‐makers, women more frequently than men clarify objec ti ves, generate alterna ti ve op ti ons, thoroughly seek relevant informa ti on, and ra ti onally evaluate this informa ti on before making the final decision. Addi ti onally, women appear to be more aware of risks, more op ti mis ti c about finding be tt er solu ti ons, and more confident that adequate ti me exists to make though tf ul decisions. These findings align with Laroche et al. (2000), who similarly found that women tend to rely more on vigilant rather than non ‐vigilant decision ‐making styles. Interes ti ngly, this ra ti onal and structured ap ‐ proach persists even though women reported lower levels of self ‐esteem compared to men (8.32 vs. 9.46). This di fference aligns with findings from Kling et al. (1999) and Bleidorn et al. (2015), who both propose that men generally have higher self ‐esteem than women. However, lower self ‐esteem does not appear to hinder women’s decision ‐making—just the oppo ‐ site, it could even enhance their vigilance. However, men’s higher self ‐esteem may contribute to overcon ‐ fidence, poten ti ally leading to less thorough and more impulsive decisions. Since self ‐esteem is a percep ti on rather than an objec ti ve measure of competence, it may not always lead to be tt er decision ‐making per ‐ formance (Baumeister et al., 2003). Regarding other decision ‐coping pa tt erns, women as well exhibited higher levels of hypervigi ‐ lance and buck ‐passing compared to men, which is in line with findings by Yan et al. (2018). They addi ‐ ti onally scored higher on procras ti na ti on, which contrasts with Bouckenooghe et al. (2007), who sug ‐ gested women are generally less prone to procras ‐ ti na ti on. These inconsistencies underscore the need for further inves ti ga ti on, especially considering this study used non ‐probability sampling, which limits generalizability. The main message is that even though there exist gender ‐based di fferences in decision ‐making styles within business and organiza ti onal se tti ngs, this does not imply inherent superiority or greater worth of either gender. Gender ‐related di fferences in decision ‐coping styles should be seen not as weaknesses but as diverse strengths. Men and women bring complementary traits to the decision ‐ making process—traits that, when integrated, can lead to more balanced, informed, and e ffec ti ve or ‐ ganiza ti onal outcomes (Eagly & Carli, 2007). 5.1 Theore ti cal contribu ti ons This study contributes to the growing body of literature exploring gender di fferences in decision ‐ making by integra ti ng findings from decisional con ‐ flict theory (Janis & Mann, 1977) and an extensive literature review of studies on gender di fferences in decision ‐making in business and organiza ti onal set ‐ ti ngs. Using the MDMQ, gender di fferences in self ‐ esteem and decision ‐coping pa tt erns—vigilance, hypervigilance, buck ‐passing, and procras ti na ti on— were explored. Women scored significantly lower in self ‐esteem compared to men (8.32 vs. 9.46), yet they scored higher on all four decision ‐coping pat ‐ terns. Interes ti ngly, both genders scored highest on vigilance, the only ra ti onal and sound decision ‐mak ‐ ing strategy, and lowest on procras ti na ti on, indicat ‐ ing a shared tendency to avoid decision delay (Mann et al., 1997, p. 14). Importantly, women were found to rely more on vigilance than men. Female decision ‐makers demon ‐ strated a stronger inclina ti on to clarify goals, gener ‐ ate alterna ti ves, systema ti cally evaluate informa ti on, and analyse op ti ons ra ti onally. They were also more aware of associated risks and more hopeful about iden ti fying be tt er solu ti ons (Mann et al., 1997, p. 2). This finding significantly extends theore ti cal work on cogni ti ve gender di fferences by showing that lower self ‐esteem did not compromise decision quality. In fact, despite their lower self ‐evalua ti ons, women ap ‐ peared to make more ra ti onal decisions, suppor ti ng Baumeister et al.’s (2003) claim that self ‐esteem re ‐ flects perceived a tt rac ti veness or confidence, not cogni ti ve ability or competence. While both genders employed ra ti onal decision strategies, women reported more frequent reliance on hypervigilance and buck ‐passing, which reflects decision ‐making under pressure and a reluctance to take responsibility, respec ti vely. These findings are consistent with those of Yan et al. (2018). However, Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 58 the results diverge from Bouckenooghe et al. (2007), who found that men were more likely to procras ti ‐ nate, whereas this study suggests that women may in fact score higher on procras ti na ti on. This di ffer ‐ ence could be the result of varia ti ons in sample characteris ti cs, measurement methods, or context. Moreover, evolving social roles and varying psycho ‐ logical factors related to procras ti na ti on might ex ‐ plain these contras ti ng findings. The research also underscores the complexity of isola ti ng gender as a sole predictor of decision ‐ making. Individual behaviour in the business and or ‐ ganiza ti onal context appears to be shaped by a reciprocal interac ti on between the person, the en ‐ vironment, and behavioural pa tt erns. As such, it was confirmed that women and men di ffer in decision ‐ making, but not in a way that favours one gender over the other. This supports a more nuanced and multi‐ causal view of behaviour, aligned with Ban ‐ dura’s (1999) triadic reciprocal determinism. 5.2 Prac ti cal implica ti ons The findings of this study hold several implica ‐ ti ons for prac ti ce in the business and organiza ti onal context, par ti cularly in leadership development, di ‐ versity strategy, and organiza ti onal culture. The ob ‐ serva ti on that women, despite having lower self ‐esteem, demonstrate more vigilant and ra ti onal decision ‐making pa tt erns than men, challenges com ‐ mon organiza ti onal assump ti ons equa ti ng confidence with competence. It suggests that hiring, promo ti on, and leadership evalua ti ons should rely less on self ‐re ‐ ported confidence and more on observable decision competence (Baumeister et al., 2003). Recognizing vigilance in decision ‐making could lead to more e ffec ‐ ti ve leadership selec ti on, allowing for be tt er decision quality in high ‐stakes business se tti ngs. Recent stud ‐ ies emphasize the importance of broadening leader ‐ ship evalua ti ons beyond confidence, no ti ng that leadership e ffec ti veness o ft en transcends outward self ‐assurance (Buljan Šiber et al., 2023). Second, women’s higher scores on vigilance imply that they are more inclined to engage in though tf ul, structured, and informed decision ‐mak ‐ ing. This pa tt ern should be recognized as a strength in leadership pipelines and in cri ti cal business func ti ons such as strategic planning, risk management, and problem ‐solving. Emphasizing vigilance in training programs could improve decision ‐making outcomes across genders, ulti mately benefi ti ng the organiza ‐ ti on’s performance. A similar approach has been found to improve the decision ‐making of female lead ‐ ers, demonstra ti ng the power of strategic thinking and analysis. Recognizing this decision ‐making style can also foster a more inclusive approach to leadership that values thorough, reasoned analysis rather than fast, confident decisions that may be based on as ‐ sump ti ons or incomplete data (Inostroza et al., 2023). At the same ti me, higher reliance on hypervigi ‐ lance and buck ‐passing among women suggests that psychological safety and accountability structures in organiza ti ons need reform. Women may defer deci ‐ sions or over ‐analyse due to organiza ti onal cultures that penalize mistakes more harshly among female professionals. As such, fostering inclusive environ ‐ ments that encourage calculated risk ‐taking, collab ‐ ora ti on, and ownership of decisions is essen ti al to enhancing decision ‐making e ffec ti veness in business environments (Yan et al., 2018). Recent studies em ‐ phasize how organiza ti ons can mi ti gate these biases by o ffering targeted leadership training and promot ‐ ing environments of psychological safety. This could create an organiza ti onal culture where women feel empowered to make decisions without fear of over ‐ criti cism or failure (Sugathan & Kumar, 2024). Third, while both genders scored similarly on pro ‐ cras ti na ti on and vigilance, women’s elevated scores across all four coping strategies hint at greater engage ‐ ment and sensi ti vity to decision environments, which may stem from naviga ti ng more complex socio ‐profes ‐ sional expecta ti ons. This deeper involvement should not be misread as indecisiveness but instead as con ‐ textual responsiveness, which can be highly valuable in organiza ti onal decision ‐making processes where mul ti ple variables need to be weighed (Bouckenooghe et al., 2007). Addi ti onally, research by Ifcher and Zarghamee (2023) shows how these coping mecha ‐ nisms can some ti mes close the gender gap when de ‐ cision ‐making for others is considered, o ffering more balanced outcomes in competiti ve se tti ngs. The nu ‐ anced approach that women o ft en take when making decisions could ul ti mately foster be tt er organiza ti onal outcomes by promo ti ng thorough, context ‐sensi ti ve decision ‐making (Ifcher and Zarghamee, 2023). Peter Preglej: Gender Di fferences in Business and Organiza ti onal Decision ‐Making: Implica ti ons for Gender Equality Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 59 In the business and organiza ti onal context, where decisions involve mul ti ple stakeholders and shi ft ing in ‐ terpersonal dynamics, understanding gendered deci ‐ sion pa tt erns becomes especially relevant. The observed ambiguity in gender di fferences highlights the need for leadership development programs to con ‐ sider individual behavioural dynamics rather than re ‐ lying solely on demographic predictors. Organiza ti ons should embrace gender equality as a strategic asset, cul ti va ti ng decision ‐making environments where dif ‐ ferent styles are encouraged, integrated, and rewarded (Catalyst, 2020; Ely & Thomas, 2001). Research by Capraro (2019) further supports the idea that address ‐ ing gender di fferences in decision ‐making, especially in equity ‐e fficiency trade ‐o ffs, can benefit organiza ‐ ti ons by improving collabora ti ve decision ‐making pro ‐ cesses. Gender equality in leadership not only enhances decision quality but also drives innova ti on and adaptability, which are crucial in today’s fast ‐paced business environments (Capraro, 2019). 5.3 Limita ti ons and future research The non ‐probability sampling method used in the study has the disadvantage of a higher likelihood of sampling bias, meaning the findings should not be considered as valid sta ti s ti cal inferences about the en ti re popula ti on. Generally, the larger the sample size, the more accurately we can make inferences about the broader popula ti on. With a sample size of 125, it is not large enough to make sta ti s ti cally valid inferences about the en ti re popula ti on. Moreover, since convenience sampling is based on selec ti ng in ‐ dividuals who are easiest for the researcher to ac ‐ cess, the sample is unlikely to be representa ti ve of the en ti re popula ti on. As a result, the sample does not represent the whole popula ti on (Scribbr, 2023). Voluntary response sampling is based on ease of access, meaning that sta ti s ti cal inferences about the en ti re popula ti on cannot be made since some individuals are more likely to volunteer than others. It is possible that those with a stronger interest in gender studies or decision ‐making chose to par ti ci ‐ pate in the survey. Addi ti onally, the online survey format may exclude individuals without internet ac ‐ cess or those not using Facebook, further compro ‐ mising sample representa ti veness (Bhandari, 2020; Laerd disserta ti on, n.d.; McCombes, 2019). Future research should explore the intersec ti on of gender roles and decision ‐making by applying the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to assess gender role orienta ti ons and the MDMQ to evaluate decision ‐ making styles in businesses and organiza ti ons. Inte ‐ gra ti ng social cogni ti ve theory (Bussey & Bandura, 1999) and decisional ‐conflict theory (Janis & Mann, 1977) may provide deeper insights into how gender influences decision ‐making processes. EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLE ČEK U činkovitost dela je v veliki meri odvisna od zaposlenih in njihovih sposobnos ti odlo čanja. Raziskave kažejo, da lahko razlike med spoloma pri odlo čanju vplivajo na managerske prakse, orga ‐ nizacijsko u činkovitost in celotne rezultate poslovanja. Čeprav imajo ženske in moški enake intelek ‐ tualne sposobnos ti in bi morali bi ti obravnavani enakovredno, se njihov pristop k odlo čanju pogosto razlikuje ter ponuja komplementarne prednos ti . Te razlike poudarjajo pomen razumevanja slogov odlo čanja glede na spol kot oboga ti tve in ne hierarhije ter osvetljujejo, zakaj je doseganje enakos ti spolov še vedno klju čno. Za op ti mizacijo odlo čanja posameznikov in skupin v poslovnem in organi ‐ zacijskem okolju je bistveno razume ti tako prednos ti kot omejitve, povezane z odlo čanjem posameznega spola. Na podlagi obsežnega pregleda znanstvenih knjig in člankov ter empiri čnih po ‐ datkov, zbranih z Melbourne Decision Making Ques ti onnaire, ki ga je izpolnilo 133 udeležencev, ta študija najprej analizira in obravnava razlike med spoloma pri individualnem odlo čanju v poslovnem in organizacijskem kontekstu. Ta analiza predstavlja temelj za prou čevanje, kako sestava skupin glede na spol vpliva na skupinsko odlo čanje, ter poudarja pomen spodbujanja enakos ti spolov v procesih organizacijskega odlo čanja; vprašanje, ki v razvitem svetu postaja vse pomembnejše. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 60 Peter Preglej: Gender Di fferences in Business and Organiza ti onal Decision ‐Making: Implica ti ons for Gender Equality REFERENCES Adams, R. B., & Ragunathan, V. (2014). Lehman sisters. FIRN Research Paper. Retrieved from h tt ps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =2380036 Ahern, K. R., & Di tt mar, A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valua ti on of mandated fe ‐ male board representa ti on. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 137–197. Apesteguia, J., Azmat, G., & Iriberri, N. (2012). The impact of gender composi ti on on team performance and de ‐ cision making: Evidence from the field. Management Science, 58(1), 78–93. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cogni ti ve theory: An agen ti c per ‐ spec ti ve. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21–41. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self ‐esteem cause be tt er performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. Bear, J. B., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). The role of gender in team collabora ti on and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 146–153. Benko, C., & Pelster, B. (2013). How women decide. Har ‐ vard Business Review. Retrieved from h tt ps://hbr.org/2013/09/how ‐women‐decide Bhandari, P. (2020). Sampling bias: What is it and why does it ma tt er? Scribbr. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling ‐bias/ Blanchard ‐Fields, F., Stein, R., & Watson, T. (2004). Age di fferences in emo ti on ‐regula ti on strategies in han ‐ dling everyday problems. The Journals of Gerontol ‐ ogy: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 59(6), 261–269. Bleidorn, W., Arslan, R., Denissen, J., Ren tf row, P., Gebauer, J., Po tt er, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2015). Age and gender di fferences in self ‐esteem: A cross ‐cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 396–410. Bosak, J., & Scezsny, S. (2011). Gender bias in leader se ‐ lec ti on? Evidence from a hiring simula ti on study. Sex Roles, 65(3–4), 234–242. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before re ‐ searchers: On the centrality of the disserta ti on litera ‐ ture review in research prepara ti on. Educa ti onal Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. Bosson, J. K., & Michniewicz, K. S. (2013). Gender di ‐ chotomiza ti on at the level of ingroup iden ti ty: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 425–442. Bouckenooghe, D., Vanderheyden, K., Mestdagh, S., & Van Laethem, S. (2007). Cogni ti ve mo ti va ti on corre ‐ lates of coping style in decisional conflict. The Journal of Psychology, 141(6), 605–625. Buljan Šiber, A., Erceg, N., Rebrina, M., & Gali ć, Z. (2023). Gender di fferences in managerial e ffec ti veness and the role of transforma ti onal leadership and intellec ‐ tual humility. Psychological Topics, 32(3), 597–613. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cogni ti ve theory of gender development and di fferen ti a ti on. Psycho ‐ logical Review, 106(4), 676–713. Capraro, V. (2019). Gender di fferences in decision ‐mak ‐ ing: The role of coopera ti on and competiti on. Eco ‐ nomics and Behavioral Studies, 17(4), 431–445. Caprino, K. (2016). How decision ‐making is di fferent between men and women and why it ma tt ers in business. Forbes. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.forbes.com/sites/kathy ‐ caprino/2016/05/12/how ‐decision ‐making‐is ‐di fferent ‐ between ‐men ‐and ‐women‐and ‐why ‐it ‐ma tt ers ‐in ‐busin ess Catalyst. (2020). Why diversity and inclusion ma tt er: Quick takes. Catalyst. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.catalyst.org/research/why ‐diversity ‐ and ‐inclusion ‐ma tt er/ Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualita ti ve, quan ti ta ti ve, and mixed methods ap ‐ proaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publica ti ons. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender di fferences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. Davis, S. N. (2017). Bem sex ‐role inventory. Britannica. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.britannica.com/sci ‐ ence/Bem ‐Sex ‐Role ‐Inventory Delaney, R., Strough, J., Parker, A. M., & Bruin, W. B. (2015). Varia ti ons in decision making profiles by age and gender: A cluster ‐analy ti c approach. Personality and Individual Di fferences, 85, 19–24. Donelson, F. E. (1999). Women’s experiences: A psycho ‐ logical perspec ti ve. Mountain View: Mayfield Publish ‐ ing Company. Dufwenberg, M., & Muren, A. (2006). Gender composi ‐ ti on in teams. Journal of Economic Behavior & Orga ‐ niza ti on, 61(1), 50–54. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gen ‐ der and the e ffec ti veness of leaders: A meta ‐analysis. Psychological Bulle ti n, 117(1), 125–145. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evalua ti on of the evidence. The Lead ‐ ership Quarterly, 14(6), 807–834. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business School Press. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen ‐Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transforma ti onal, transac ti onal, and laissez ‐faire leadership styles: A meta ‐analysis com ‐ paring women and men. Psychological Bulle ti n, 129(4), 569–591. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 61 Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The e ffects of diversity perspec ti ves on work group processes and outcomes. Administra ti ve Sci ‐ ence Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273. Field, A. P. (2000). Nonparametric tests. In Discovering sta ti s ti cs using SPSS for Windows: Advanced tech ‐ niques for the beginner. London: Sage. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.discoveringsta ti s ti cs.com/repository/no nparametric.pdf Filipe, L., Alvarez, M. J., Roberto, M. S., & Ferreira, J. A. (2020). Valida ti on and invariance across age and gen ‐ der for the Melbourne Decision ‐Making Ques ti on ‐ naire in a sample of Portuguese adults. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(1), 135–148. Ferrari, G., Ferraro, V., Profeta, P ., & Pronzato, C. (2016). Gender quotas: Challenging the boards, performance, and the stock market. IZA Discussion Paper No. 10239. Retrieved from h tt ps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa ‐ pers.cfm?abstract_id=2846330 Formplus. (n.d.). What is ordinal data? Examples, vari ‐ ables & analysis. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.formpl.us/blog/ordinal ‐data Gen ti le, B., Grabe, S., Dolan ‐Pascoe, B., Twenge, J. M., Wells, B. E., & Mai ti no, A. (2009). Gender di fferences in domain ‐specific self ‐esteem: A meta ‐analysis. Re ‐ view of General Psychology, 13(1), 34–45. Glen, S. (2015). Homogeneity, homogeneous data & ho ‐ mogeneous sampling. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.sta ti s ti cshowto.com/homogeneity ‐ho ‐ mogeneous/ Gorman, E. (2005). Gender stereotypes, same ‐gender preferences, and organiza ti onal varia ti on in the hiring of women: Evidence from law firms. American Socio ‐ logical Review, 70(4), 702–728. Gorodetzky, H., Sahakian, B. J., Robbins, T. W., & Ersche, K. D. (2011). Di fferences in self ‐reported decision ‐ making styles in s ti mulant ‐dependent and opiate ‐de ‐ pendent individuals. Psychiatry Research, 186(2–3), 437–440. Haier, R. J., Jung, R. E., Yeo, R., Head, K., & Alkire, M. T. (2005). The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: Sex ma tt ers. NeuroImage, 25(1), 320–327. Halpern, D. F. (1997). Cri ti cal thinking across the curriculum: A brief edi ti on of thought and knowledge. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9 781315805719/cri ti cal ‐thinking ‐across ‐curriculum ‐ diane ‐halpern Halpern, D. F. (2012). Sex di fferences in cogni ti ve abili ti es (4th ed.). Psychology Press. Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H., & van Praag, M. (2013). The impact of gender diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from a field experiment. Ex ‐ perimental Economics, 16(4), 452–472. Ibanez, M., Czermak, S., & Su tt er, M. (2009). Searching for a be tt er deal: On the influence of group decision making, ti me pressure, and gender on search behav ‐ ior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(1), 1–10. Ifcher, J., & Zarghamee, H. (2023). Does decision making for others close the gender gap in compe titi on? Man ‐ agement Science, 69(11), 7633–7649. Inostroza, L., Valencia, S., & López, F. (2023). Strategic thinking and decision ‐making among female leaders in business: A quan ti ta ti ve analysis. Interna ti onal Journal of Business Studies, 55(4), 109–124. Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. Oxford University Press. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. Retrieved from h tt ps://openlibrary.org/works/OL1282010W/Deci ‐ sion_making Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corpora ti on. Basic Books. Kimmel, M. (2015, October). Why gender equality is good for everyone – Men included [Video]. TEDx. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n9IOH0NvyY&t=2 20s Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender di fferences in self ‐esteem: A meta ‐ analysis. Psychological Bulle ti n, 125(4), 470–500. Kornilova, T. V., Chumakova, M. A., & Krasavtseva, Y. (2018). Emo ti onal intelligence, pa tt erns for coping with decisional conflict, and academic achievement in cross ‐cultural perspec ti ve. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 11(2), 114–133. Laerd Disserta ti on. (n.d.). Convenience sampling. Retrieved from h tt p://disserta ti on.laerd.com/convenience ‐sam ‐ pling.php Laerd Sta ti s ti cs. (n.d.a). Assump ti ons of the Mann ‐Whit ‐ ney U test. Retrieved from h tt ps://sta ti s ti cs.laerd.com/sta ti s ti cal ‐guides/mann ‐ whitney ‐u ‐test ‐assump ti ons.php#equal ‐distribu ti ons Laerd Sta ti s ti cs. (n.d.b). Mann ‐Whitney U test using SPSS Sta ti s ti cs. Retrieved from h tt ps://sta ti s ti cs.laerd.com/spss ‐ tutorials/mann ‐whitney ‐u ‐test ‐using ‐spss ‐sta ti s ti cs.php Laroche, M., Saad, G., Cleveland, M., & Browne, E. (2000). Gender di fferences in informa ti on search strategies for a Christmas gi ft . Journal of Consumer Marke ti ng, 17(6), 500–522. Levin, I. P., Rouwenhorst, R. M., & Trisko, H. M. (2005). Separa ti ng gender biases in screening and selec ti ng candidates for hiring and firing. Social Behavior and Personality: An Interna ti onal Journal, 33(8), 793–804. Lizárraga, M. L. S. de A., Baquedano, M. T . S. de A., & Cardelle ‐ Elawar, M. (2007). Factors that a ffect decision making: Gender and age di fferences. Interna ti onal Journal of Psy ‐ chology and Psychological Therapy, 7(3), 381–391. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 62 Peter Preglej: Gender Di fferences in Business and Organiza ti onal Decision ‐Making: Implica ti ons for Gender Equality Löckenho ff, C. E. (2011). Age, ti me, and decision making: From processing speed to global ti me horizons. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235(1), 44–56. Mackow ‐McGuire, L. (2016). Why equality between women and men is important. Right for Educa ti on. Retrieved from h tt ps://righ tf oreduca ti on.org/2016/04/05/men ‐ and ‐women‐are ‐equal/ Mann, L. (1982). Flinders Decision Making Ques ti onnaire II [Unpublished ques ti onnaire]. Flinders University of South Australia. Mann, L., Burne tt , P ., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997). The Melbourne Decision Making Ques ti onnaire: An in ‐ strument for measuring pa tt erns for coping with de ‐ cisional conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(1), 1–19. Mann, L., Harmoni, R., & Power, C. (1989). Adolescent de ‐ cision ‐making: The development of competence. Journal of Adolescence, 12(3), 265–278. Mann, L., Janis, I. L., & Chaplin, R. (1969). E ffects of an ‐ ti cipa ti on of forthcoming informa ti on on predeci ‐ sional processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(1), 10–16. Marsden, P . V ., Kalleberg, A. L., & Cook, C. R. (1993). Gen ‐ der di fferences in organiza ti onal commitment: Influ ‐ ences of work posi ti ons and family roles. Work and Occupa ti ons, 20(3), 368–390. Matlin, M. W . (2008). The psychology of women (6th ed.). Belmont: Thomson. Matsa, D. A., & Miller, A. R. (2013). A female style in cor ‐ porate leadership? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(3), 136–169. McCombes, S. (2019). An introduc ti on to sampling meth ‐ ods. Scribbr. Retrieved from h tt ps://www .scribbr . c om ‐ /methodology/sampling ‐methods/ McDonald, J. H. (2014). Kruskal ‐Wallis test. In Handbook of biological sta ti s ti cs. Retrieved from h tt p://www.biostathandbook.com/kruskalwallis.html McKinsey & Company. (2010). Women leaders, a compet ‐ i ti ve edge in and a ft er the crisis. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/busi ‐ ness%20func ti ons/organiza ti on/our%20insights/wom en%20ma tt er/women_ma tt er_dec2009_english.pdf McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion ma tt ers. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.mckinsey.com/fea ‐ tured ‐insights/diversity ‐and ‐inclusion/diversity ‐wins ‐ how ‐inclusion ‐ma tt ers Michaelides, A. (2022). Study reveals how many decisions we make each day. Metro News. Retrieved from h tt ps://metro.co.uk/2022/08/09/study ‐reveals ‐how ‐ many ‐decisions ‐we ‐make ‐each ‐day ‐17150428/ Minasyan, D., & Tovmasyan, G. (2020). Gender di fferences in decision ‐making and leadership: Evidence from Ar ‐ menia. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(1), 6–16. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Peterson, Z. D. (2011). Dis ti nguish ‐ ing between sex and gender: History, current concep ‐ tualiza ti ons, and implica ti ons. Sex Roles, 64(11–12), 791–803. Muller ‐Kahle, M. I., & Lewellyn, K. B. (2011). Did board configura ti on ma tt er? The case of US subprime lenders. Corporate Governance: An Interna ti onal Re ‐ view, 19(5), 405–417. Muyinudeen, B. M. H., & Elsadig, M. A. (2008). Gender di fferences in decision ‐making styles of Malaysian managers. European Journal of Scien ti fic Research, 19(3), 405–415. Naidu, D., & Naidu, D. (n.d.). Things we cannot control or change in life. Retrieved from h tt p://www.skilledatlife.com/things ‐we ‐cannot ‐con ‐ trol ‐or ‐change ‐in ‐life/#disqus_thread Narayan, S. M., & Corcoran ‐Perry, S. (1997). Line of rea ‐ soning as a representa ti on of nurses’ clinical decision making. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(4), 353–364. Nikolova, H., & Lamberton, C. (2016). Men and the mid ‐ dle: Gender di fferences in dyadic compromise e ffects. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 1–17. Noland, M., Moran, T., & Kotschwar, B. (2016). Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a global survey (Working Paper 16 ‐3). Peterson Ins ti tute for Interna ‐ ti onal Economics. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.piie.com/publica ti ons/wp/wp16 ‐3.pdf Ombaba, K. B. M. (2016). Board diversity and financial performance: Evidence from Kenya. Africa Interna ‐ ti onal Journal of Management Educa ti on and Gover ‐ nance, 1(1), 1–15. Petersen, T., Saporta, I., & Seidel, M. L. (2000). O ffering a job: Meritocracy and social networks. American Jour ‐ nal of Sociology, 106(3), 763–816. Profeta, P . (2017). Gender equality in decision ‐making posi ‐ ti ons: The e fficiency gains. Intereconomics, 52(1), 34–37. Rose, C. (2007). Does female board representa ti on influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Gov ‐ ernance: An Interna ti onal Review, 15(2), 404–413. Sahakian, B. J., & Labuze tt a, J. N. (2013). Bad moves: How decision making goes wrong, and the ethics of smart drugs.Oxford University Press. Schwalbe, M. L., & Staples, C. L. (1991). Gender di ffer ‐ ences in sources of self ‐esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(2), 158–168. Scribbr . (2023). What is non ‐probability sampling? Every ‐ thing you need to know. Scribbr. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.scribbr.com/methodology/non ‐proba ‐ bility ‐sampling/ Soane, E., & Nicholson, N. (2008). Individual di fferences in decision making. In G. P . Hodgkinson & W. H. Star ‐ buck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organiza ti onal decision making (pp. 1–15). Oxford University Press. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, November 2025 63 SPSS Tutorials. (2020). How to run Levene’s test in SPSS? Retrieved from h tt ps://www.spss ‐tutorials.com/lev ‐ enes ‐test ‐in ‐spss/ Sridharan, R. (2015). Nonparametric sta ti s ti cs and model selec ti on [Lecture notes]. Sta ti s ti cs for Research Pro ‐ jects: IAP 2015. Retrieved from h tt p://www.mit.edu/~6.s085/notes/lecture5.pdf Sta ti s ti cs Solu ti ons. (2020). The assump ti on of homogeneity of variance. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.sta ti s ti cssolu ‐ ti ons.com/the ‐assump ti on ‐of ‐homogeneity ‐of ‐variance/ Sugathan, S., & Kumar, A. (2024). Exploring gender di ffer ‐ ences in investment decision ‐making: The role of AI in iden ti fying and addressing behavioral biases. Inter ‐ na ti onal Research Journal on Advanced Engineering and Management, 2(10), 1–15. Tovmasyan, G., & Minasyan, D. (2020). Gender di fferences in decision ‐making and leadership: Evidence from Ar ‐ menia. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(1), 6–16. Van der Walt, N., Ingley, C., Shergill, G. S., & Townsend, A. (2006). Board configura ti on: Are diverse boards be tt er boards? Corporate Governance, 6(2), 129–147. Van Vugt, M., Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P . (2007). Gender di fferences in coopera ti on and compe titi on. Psycho ‐ logical Science, 18(1), 19–23. Voices of Youth. (2011, November 23). Every human being should be treated equally according to their human rights [Blog]. Retrieved from h tt ps://www.voicesofy ‐ outh.org/blog/every ‐human ‐being ‐should ‐be‐treated ‐ equally ‐according ‐their ‐human ‐rights Wansink, B., & Sobal, J. (2007). Mindless ea ti ng: The 200 daily food decisions we overlook. Environment and Behavior, 39(1), 106–123. World Economic Forum. (2024). The global gender gap report 2024. Retrieved from h tt ps://www3.wefo ‐ rum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2024.pdf XLSTAT. (2020a). Kolmogorov ‐Smirnov test in Excel tuto ‐ rial. Retrieved from h tt ps://help.xlstat.com/6676 ‐kol ‐ mogorov ‐smirnov ‐test ‐excel ‐tutorial XLSTAT. (2020b). What is the di fference between a para ‐ metric and a nonparametric test? Retrieved from h tt ps://help.xlstat.com/6739 ‐what ‐di fference ‐be ‐ tween ‐parametric ‐and ‐nonparametric Yan, W . S., Zhang, R. R., Lan, Y ., Li, Z. M., & Li, Y . H. (2018). Ques ti onnaire ‐based maladap ti ve decision ‐coping pa tt erns involved in binge ea ti ng among 1013 college students. Fron ti ers in Psychology, 9, 609. Zaiontz, C. (2020). Assump ti ons for sta ti s ti cal tests. Re ‐ trieved from h tt p://www.real ‐sta ti s ti cs.com/descrip ‐ ti ve ‐sta ti s ti cs/assump ti ons ‐sta ti s ti cal ‐test/ Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2012). Are women be tt er leaders than men? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from h tt p://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/a_study_in_leader ‐ ship_women_do.htm