ScienceNot yet confirmed elsewhere1 publisher2 min readPublished
Separate P&L divisions track with more women reaching CEO in 25 years of U.S. personnel records
A UMass Amherst-led study estimates women had a 37% higher probability of internal CEO promotion at multi-unit firms than at stand-alone ones. The authors argue that divisional results are measurable and hard to credit to others, so biased judgment has less room.
The Scientist · Science desk
Key figures: women in multi-unit firms had a 37% higher estimated probability of internal promotion to CEO than women in stand-alone firms. Promotion to CEO occurred in about 0.56% of roughly 2.4 million manager-year observations. The records cover 616,754 managers.
| Figure | Value | Note | Claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| Women's CEO promotion odds, multi-unit vs stand-alone | 37% higher | 4 | |
| Manager-years with a promotion to CEO | 0.56% about | of roughly 2.4 million observations | 3 |
| Managers in the records | 616,754 managers | 2 |
What happened
- The sample is 25 years of LexisNexis personnel records covering 616,754 managers at 49,135 U.S. companies from 1993 to 2017.
- CEO promotion is rare in these records, occurring in about 0.56% of roughly 2.4 million manager-year observations.
- Men fared slightly worse at divisionalized firms, according to the study.
- Tsolmon and Du describe the results as associations, not proof that restructuring a company will produce women CEOs.
Why it matters
- constraint Even where divisions exist, the authors say the structure does not necessarily address who gets handed a division to run in the first place.
- cost Divisionalizing means delegating more, and delegation brings the overhead of mentoring managers and linking incentives to results, which the firm itself has to fund.
- decision A firm weighing a reorganization on this evidence is acting on a comparison among companies that chose their own structures, each of which carries trade-offs.
The 37% is a relative figure, and the base under it is small. Applying the 0.56% promotion rate to the 2.4 million observations gives on the order of 13,000 CEO promotions in the whole sample, men and women together [14]. The summary does not report women's absolute rate in either firm type, the controls in the model, or an effect size for men, so the lift in percentage points cannot be read off.
The outcome is narrow, too. It is internal promotion to CEO, so a woman brought in from outside to run a company does not enter the 37% [4]. The records also stop in 2017 [2].
On whether structure explains the gap better than culture does, the authors put it as a possibility: accounting, more than company culture, may be the explanation [16]. The data cannot arbitrate. A personnel directory records who held which title at which firm [2]; it is not a gauge of how a workplace treats people. Firms that divisionalize may also differ from stand-alone firms in ways that shape whom they promote.
The men's result is the most informative detail the summary offers. If divisional firms simply promoted more insiders to CEO, men would gain alongside women, and they did not [5]. That fits an explanation tied to how results are seen, and it is as far as we would take it.
Tsolmon's account of that explanation is about legibility. "It's clear who has led the unit," she said [17]. Centralized firms, she suggested, lean on hierarchy, relationships and impression management [10]. Tsolmon suggests that reliance could weigh more heavily on women if they have less access to the networks that decide who gets resources and promotions [10]. That part is her suggestion.
Her caution on policy is direct. "The prescription is definitely not that everybody should just go out there and become divisionalized," Tsolmon said [13]. She wants later work to test whether the gap opens earlier on the career ladder and whether performance visibility affects men and women differently [11]. "Until we really understand the mechanisms behind the disparity, it's hard to prescribe solutions," she said [12].
What to watch
- Tsolmon and Du's proposed follow-up on whether the gender gap emerges earlier on the career ladder.
- Whether later work reports women's absolute promotion rates by firm type and the size of the difference for men.
- Evidence on how divisions get assigned, since the authors flag who is handed a division as unaddressed.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence58
- Adoption
- Insufficient
- Hype gap+10
- Incentives
- Insufficient
- Confidence55
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
A new study led by the University of Massachusetts Amherst finds women managers are significantly more likely to be promoted to CEO at companies organized into separate business units than at stand-alone companies.
ReportedSupportedSource: phys.org report on the Strategic Management Journal study by Tsolmon and DuView cited source - [2]
The study draws on 25 years of personnel records from the LexisNexis Directory of Corporate Affiliations, covering 616,754 managers at 49,135 U.S. companies from 1993 to 2017.
- [3]
Promotion to CEO was rare in any given year, occurring in about 0.56% of roughly 2.4 million manager-year observations.
- [4]
The study estimates that women in multi-unit firms had a 37% higher probability of internal promotion to CEO than women in stand-alone firms.
- [6]
Tsolmon and Du note the results describe associations rather than proof that restructuring a company will produce women CEOs.
- [7]
The authors caution that divisionalization does not necessarily address inequality elsewhere, especially who gets handed a division to run in the first place.
- [8]
Companies do not choose their structures at random, and each structure carries trade-offs.
- [9]
Multi-unit firms delegate more, which means mentoring managers and linking incentives to results.
- [10]
More centralized firms rely on internal control through hierarchy, relationships and impression management, which could be more difficult for women if they have fewer chances to break into the networks that allocate resources and promotions.
- [11]
Tsolmon would like future research to examine whether the gender gap emerges earlier on the career ladder, and whether the visibility of performance affects men and women differently as they climb.
- [12]
"Until we really understand the mechanisms behind the disparity, it's hard to prescribe solutions," Tsolmon said.
- [13]
"The prescription is definitely not that everybody should just go out there and become divisionalized," Tsolmon said.
- [14]
A 0.56% promotion rate applied to roughly 2.4 million manager-year observations implies on the order of 13,000 CEO promotions across the whole sample, men and women combined.
- [15]
When a manager runs a division with its own P&L, her results are measurable, comparable to other divisional executives' results and difficult to credit to someone else, which narrows the space for subjective judgment where bias creeps in.
ReportedContestedSource: Study authors Tsolmon and Du, as reported by phys.org2 sources— create a free account to open themView cited source - [16]
Tsolmon and Du suggest the explanation for the gender gap in CEO promotion may have less to do with company culture and more to do with accounting.
- [17]
"It's clear who has led the unit," Tsolmon said.
ReportedContestedSource: Ulya Tsolmon, associate professor of strategy, UMass Amherst2 sources— create a free account to open themView cited source
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
- phys.orgWant more women CEOs? Start with company structure, research finds
1 article · October 13, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.