Content uploaded by Sharon Koppman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sharon Koppman on Dec 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
GOING FOR THE GOLD: THE
EFFECT OF COMPETITIVE
SOCIALIZATION ON MANAGERIAL
ATTAINMENT
Sharon Koppman
ABSTRACT
Purpose This chapter proposes and tests a novel relationship between
early participation in competitive activities, “competition socialization,”
and the attainment of a managerial position in adulthood. Building on
extensive qualitative research, I argue that an early emphasis on “win-
ning” becomes internalized as a desire for the extrinsic rewards that in
some ways characterize managerial positions.
Methodology I test this hypothesis on survey data collected from pro-
fessionals (N=334) employed in a probability sample of U.S. advertis-
ing agencies, using binomial logistic regression.
Finding For individuals under forty, competition socialization
increases the likelihood of working in a managerial position. However,
this effect does not hold for older professionals, for whom graduate edu-
cation is a better predictor of managerial attainment.
Adolescent Experiences and Adult Work Outcomes: Connections and Causes
Research in the Sociology of Work, Volume 25, 221242
Copyright r2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0277-2833/doi:10.1108/S0277-283320140000025008
221
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Value of the chapter To my knowledge, this is the first chapter to
test of the effect of youth participation in organized activities on
adulthood outcomes. By drawing attention to the influence of competi-
tive socialization on managerial attainment, I highlight the need to
incorporate informal socialization into our models of occupational
attainment.
Key words: Inequality; managerial attainment; childhood
socialization; after-school activities; competition
In the last few decades, children and young adults’ participation in orga-
nized activities has greatly increased (Adler & Adler, 1994;Hofferth &
Sandberg, 2001). Organized activities account for a large amount of chil-
dren’s time (Crouter & Booth, 2004;Rosenfeld, Wise, & Coles, 2001)
and require substantial parental labor (Lareau & Weininger, 2008).
Parents justify the investment as preparing children for professional suc-
cess (Levey, 2009). However, a fundamental question remains: does it
work?
While the effects of education on occupational attainment are well docu-
mented(see Breen & Jonsson, 2005 for a review), less is known about socia-
lization that occurs outside the educational system. Although social
theorists such as Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) famously argued
that informal socialization builds the capital necessary for adulthood occu-
pational attainment, empirical tests linking these processes are sparse, and
consequences for our adult lives remain unexplored.
This chapter takes a first step to address this gap by examining the
effects of informal socialization on the attainment of a managerial position.
Working as a manager, by virtue of its relationship to a higher than aver-
age income, has important consequences for adulthood health (Illsley &
Svensson, 1990), well-being (Easterlin, 2001), and safety (Blau & Blau,
1982). In this chapter, I refine Levey’s (2009; 2003) theory that early partici-
pation in competitive activities leads to professional success. Focusing on
the case of professional managers in advertising, I find that competitive
socialization increases the chance an individual will work as a manager, a
relationship perpetuated by the internalization of a preference for extrinsic
rewards.
222 SHARON KOPPMAN
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
MECHANISMS OF INEQUALITY
Following Blau and Duncan’s (1967) seminal study of status attainment,
education has been viewed as a main driver of social inequality (for reviews
see Bielby, 1981;Blau, 1992;Breen & Jonsson, 2005;Featherman, 1996).
Blau and Duncan posited a causal relationship from father’s educational
and occupational status to son’s education, first job, and occupational
attainment. This basic model has been elaborated to include the mediating
effects of ability, aspirations, and peer influences on educational attainment
(Sewell & Hauser, 1975). Education’s mediation of the relationship between
parental origins and adulthood outcomes has proved robust across multiple
time periods and countries (Breen & Jonsson, 2005).
Yet, intergenerational privilege can be transmitted through other means.
Outside formal educational institutions, children’s social interactions con-
tribute to their “cultural capital,” i.e., widely shared high status cultural
signals, including habits, practices, competencies, knowledge and tastes,
that confer social advantages (Lareau & Lamont, 1988). Cultural capital
has been found to affect students’ interactions with the formal educational
system (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990), family-school relationships (Lareau,
1987), marital selection (DiMaggio & Mohr, 1985), museum attendance
(Kracman, 1996), educational attainment (DiMaggio, 1982), transitions in
the educational careers (Aschaffenburg & Maas, 1997), and the likelihood
of attending a four-year college (Kaufman & Gabler, 2004). As an adult, it
facilitates entrance into elite educational (Stevens, 2009), professional
(Rivera, 2011, 2012), and leisure (Rivera, 2010) institutions.
Privilege is also transmitted through social capital. A resource activated
through relationships (Coleman, 1988), social capital provides benefits such
as cooperation and coordination (Putnam, 1995), but also reproduces
inequality through its unequal distribution in the population (Bourdieu,
1986). Children who receive insufficient social capital from their parents are
disadvantaged in competencies, knowledge, and skills required to compete
in the labor market (Coleman, 1988). Furthermore, social capital frequently
facilitates labor market entry (Granovetter, 1974). Since information about
job vacancies and qualifications is not always freely available, gaining access
to this information often requires personal ties to high-status individuals
(Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981). As a consequence, individuals without these
ties are comparatively disadvantaged in hiring situations.
Research has generally focused on family relationships as the key
conduits of cultural and social capital, although findings are far from
223The Effect of Competitive Socialization on Managerial Attainment
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
conclusive. Lareau (2000) argues that parents’ cultural capital (e.g., knowl-
edge of the educational process, and educational jargon, and contact with
school personnel) significantly affects children’s school performance.
Similarly, Coleman (1987, 1988) asserts that parents’ social capital (e.g.,
parent forming networks with the parents of their child’s friends, parental
involvement in school activities) creates additional social constraints on
children’s behavior. However, empirical findings have been inconsistent.
High parental involvement has been found to be positively (Fehrmann,
Keith, & Reimers, 1987;Stevenson & Baker, 1987;Useem, 1992) and nega-
tively (Fan, 2001;Milne, Myers, Rosenthal, & Ginsburg, 1986) correlated
with educational outcomes. The same holds true for qualitative studies:
some follow Lareau (2000) finding positive effects (Comer & Edelman,
1980;Epstein, 2001), while others argue that this relationship is just an arti-
fact of class advantages that parents already possess (Reay, 1998). Even
studies that control for the possibility of reverse causality have yielded simi-
larly ambiguous results. For instance, while children who discuss school
with their parents advance more rapidly in math, beyond that, most parent
involvement has no effect (Muller, 1998). Likewise, while parental involve-
ment has no relationship to improvement on achievement tests, it can pre-
vent behavioral problems (Domina, 2005).
Scholarly attention has recently turned to children and young adults’
participation in organized activities as an alternative source of capital
attainment. According to Lareau (2003),organized activities are a crucial
component of the process of “concerted cultivation,” wherein important
skills are transmitted to children. By spending time in activities arranged by
adults, children are exposed to a wide range of social experiences, instilled
with individualist values, and taught to emphasize performance. Through
this, they develop a sense of entitlement which enables them to negotiate
with doctors, coaches, and teachers, as well as thrive in an academic envir-
onment (Bodovski & Farkas, 2008;Calarco, 2011;Lareau, 1987, 2003).
Moreover, these activities provide the opportunity to forge relationships
with unrelated adults, developing social capital that helps adolescents tran-
sition into the adult world. These relationships provide youth with addi-
tional information, assistance, and support, and provide references that can
vouch for their character to other community adults and potential employ-
ers (Jarrett, Sullivan, & Watkins, 2004)
Building on this research, Levey (2009) theorizes that children’s partici-
pation in activities that emphasize competition pave the way for profes-
sional success. Drawing on extensive interviews with parents, coaches, and
children, she shows that parents, desiring upper-middle class lifestyles for
224 SHARON KOPPMAN
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
their children, encourage the development of a “competitive habitus,” a
strategy they believe will produce high-achieving adults. With the primary
goal of developing their child’s internal desire to win, they also seek to
improve their ability to recover from loss, manage pressure, perform under
stress, and survive external judgment. For their part, children participating
in competitive activities express a desire for extrinsic material rewards
(e.g., trophies, ribbons, medals) and a relative acceptance of the need for
the uncomfortable experience of evaluation, pressure, and stress (Levey,
2013).
I elaborate this theory, arguing that by virtue of their focus on “win-
ning,” competitive activities encourage extrinsic rather than intrinsic moti-
vation, a process which informs career choice. While intrinsic motivation
(seeking emotional satisfaction) and extrinsic motivation (seeking a goal
apart from work itself) were initially considered situation-dependent states,
there is evidence this motivation may be relatively stable and consistent
across time and situations (Amabile, 1993;Hackman & Oldham, 1976). By
participating in competitive activities, individuals internalize their affiliated
norms, values, and ways of thinking, a process I term “competitive sociali-
zation.” In this way, individuals develop a motivation to win that extends
beyond immediate situation to other aspects of their lives. Ultimately, I
expect competitive socialization to shape occupational attainment, particu-
larly in the early stages of an individual’s career. Self-selection into career
tracks is the result of matching perceptions of individual characteristics and
those of the occupation in question (Cech, forthcoming). Since managerial
positions, like competitive activities, provide material rewards for perfor-
mance (e.g., commission, bonuses), I expect that managerial occupations
are more likely to attract individuals motivated by extrinsic rewards.
H1: Competitive socialization increases the likelihood that an individual
works in a managerial position.
In addition to an increased motivation to pursue these positions, I sus-
pect that individuals with competitive socialization are more likely to have
the cultural (Rivera, 2011)and social capital (Granovetter, 1974) needed to
attain these positions. Credentials, particularly from highly selective educa-
tional institutions, are one of the most visible indicators of cultural capital.
Competitive socialization may increase an individual’s desire to enter these
institutions, which is itself a highly competitive process, demanding a long-
term dedicated effort by both students and their parents (Stevens, 2009). I
expect competitive socialization increases the chance an individual will pur-
sue a high-status degree, which serves as a signal of merit in the hiring
225The Effect of Competitive Socialization on Managerial Attainment
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
process (Rivera, 2011). Furthermore, while all extracurricular activities
increase the opportunity to make new relationships, social ties must be acti-
vated in order to acquire value. Competitive socialization may increase an
individual’s assertiveness, making them more likely to use their social net-
works instrumentally to call a friend for a favor or ask acquaintances
about job-related information. Increased confidence may also lead to an
increased propensity to strategically develop social networks, as advocated
by Burt (1995). Combining these indirect effects with the advantages
transmitted through family relationships, I expect these intermediate
outcomes educational attainment, cultural capital, and social capital
also to contribute to managerial attainment.
H2: Education, cultural capital, and social capital increase the likelihood
that an individual works in a managerial position.
While I expect that competitive socialization has direct and indirect
effects on occupational attainment, this influence likely dissipates through-
out the life course. As individuals are exposed to new experiences and ways
of thinking, they find different and varied sources of motivation.
Emotional satisfaction, spending time with family, cultivating professional
skills, and developing fulfilling relationships may take precedence over
“winning.” As a result, I expect that the effects of competitive socialization
are most pronounced during early stages of an individual’s career. In later
stages, professional (e.g., Abbott, 1988)or organizational (e.g., Van
Maanen & Schein, 1977) socialization may replace this effect. Since profes-
sional socialization is often acquired through professional education
(Schleef, 2006), I expect that having a graduate degree is more likely to
influence managerial attainment at later career stages.
H3: There is a three-way interaction between a respondent’s age, compe-
titive socialization, and attainment of a graduate degree.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Case Justification
To test these hypotheses, I use data collected from the U.S. advertising
industry. Focusing on one industry allows for the analysis of relationships
within a field (Erickson, 1996) and controls for extraneous variation
(Eisenhardt, 1989). From a practical perspective, professional service indus-
tries, like advertising, are an important area of study because of their
226 SHARON KOPPMAN
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
significant contribution to the U.S. economy: in 2010, their revenues
reached 1.304 trillion (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). In terms of industry
structure, advertising is representative of the professional service industries;
U.S. advertising agencies and professional service firms more generally
have the same average size, around nine employees (U.S. Department of
Labor, 2012;U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). However, advertising is distinct
from other professional service industries in its educational requirements
and integration of women. In advertising, there are no formal requirements
for entry. Although many advertising professionals have bachelor’s
degrees, very few have degrees in advertising specifically. Furthermore,
while the lack of racial diversity is consistent with professional service
industries more generally (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012), there are com-
paratively more women in managerial positions (Mallia, 2009). Although
this does not appear to be reflected in my results both education and
gender have significant effects in the direction predicted by previous
research the unique features of this industry may be attenuating these
effects.
Sample
Idrew a random sample of full-service advertising agencies
1
in the United
States, stratified by organizational size, from the Advertising Redbooks
Standard Directory of Advertising Agencies (2012), a commonly used sam-
pling frame for the advertising industry (see Reid & King, 2003;Reid,
King, & DeLorme, 1998;Swain, 2004, 2005). For each sampled agency, I
sent a personalized email to the organization contact listed in the
Redbooks. Organization contacts were typically upper-level management
(e.g., CEO, CFO, COO, chief creative officer). I sent two emails: an initial
invitation that asked the organizational contact to forward the survey invi-
tation to everyone in their organization, and a reminder one week later. I
offered respondents a preliminary report of survey findings and the possibi-
lity of winning a $50 gift card to Amazon.com as incentives to participate.
I successfully contacted 600 organizations.
2
Unfortunately, I am unable to precisely calculate the response rate
because, by IRB mandate, the survey is completely anonymous. Given that
the survey asked respondents about information which is generally not
publically shared within organizations (e.g., salary, personal feelings about
their organization), anonymity was also needed to elicit truthful responses.
I am, however, able to calculate an approximation using IP addresses. Two
hundred two organizations (unique IP addresses) were used to access the
227The Effect of Competitive Socialization on Managerial Attainment
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
survey (34 percent response rate at the organizational level).
3
I received
responses from 405 people, for a total response rate of 39 percent at the
individual level.
4
Of these individuals, 334 people completed the entire sur-
vey, for a complete response rate of 32 percent. This is above the average 20
percent response rate for an email survey (Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine,
2004), especially considering the survey’s length (more than 70 questions).
I found little evidence of response bias. The mean organizational size in
my sample was 31 employees; the median for the responding organizations
was between 25 and 49. Responding organizations were geographically dis-
tributed across the country, with respondents from almost every state. There
was a concentration of responses in the Mid-Atlantic region, Los Angeles,
and Chicago, three places with high concentrations of firms. Firms that for-
warded the email had the same median size as all responding organizations
and were also geographically distributed across the country. Respondents
from forwarding organizations did not significantly differ from respondents
from nonforwarding organizations on any of the analyses’ key variables.
Measures
The variables used to test my argument are operationalized in the following
sections. Table 1 presents a summary of the included variables.
Managerial Attainment
My survey instrument used advertising industry demarcations to describe
work functions. The category “senior management” describes chief execu-
tive and financial officers and other department heads. Given that workers
in smaller agencies frequently have more than one job function, my survey
asked for a departmental affiliation and, if applicable, a secondary affilia-
tion. Since my primary interest is in whether respondents were able to attain
a managerial position, I included both primary and secondary affiliations.
This variable was coded “1” if either primary or secondary affiliation was
“senior management” and “0” if not.
Independent Variables
Competitive Socialization
Competitive socialization is measured by whether or not the respondent
answered that they had participated in organized activities competitively,
228 SHARON KOPPMAN
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
rather than recreationally, specifically “through organizations or groups
that kept records of successes and provided prizes for achievement”
between the ages of 618.
Education
Education is measured by whether or not the respondent had a graduate
degree. This measure was chosen over the typical bachelor’s degree, because
the vast majority of my sample (82 percent) had a bachelor’s degree.
5
Social Capital
Field-relevant social capital is measured by response to the question “how
did you get your first job in advertising?” The survey contained eight possi-
ble answers to this question, two related to social capital: referrals from
family and friends (“strong ties”) and acquaintances (“weak ties”). Around
100 respondents selected the “other” option, which allowed them to type in
answers, which were later coded by the researcher by hand. In this cate-
gory, answers indicative of social capital included explanations such as
“made a contact in the industry” and “dinner conversation.”
6
Table 1. Variables Used in the Regression Analysis.
Variable Measurement
Occupation
Manager Primary workplace position in senior management (yes =1; no =0)
Socialization
Competitive Participated in competitive activities as a child, ages 618 (yes =1;
no =0)
Graduate degree Attained a graduate degree (yes =1; no=0)
Capital
Social Attained first job in advertising through network (yes =1; no =0)
Cultural Number of different types of music respondent likes (015)
Controls
Under forty Under 40 years old (yes =1; no=0)
Female Female (yes =1; no =0)
Mother’s education Mother attained four-year degree or more (yes =1; no=0)
Mother housewife Mother does not work outside the home (yes =1; no=0)
Father’s occupation Father in a middle-class/professional occupation (yes =1; no =0)
Father’s education Father attained four-year degree or more (yes =1; no =0)
229The Effect of Competitive Socialization on Managerial Attainment
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Cultural Capital
The extent to which cultural capital informs occupational attainment in
the United States is a source of debate (Erickson, 1996;Lamont, 1992;
Rivera, 2012). I included the most commonly used measure of cultural
capital in American sociology: the number of musical genres each respon-
dent likes (e.g., Erickson, 1996;Goldberg, 2011;Peterson & Kern, 1996).
The question had exactly the same wording as the one in the 1992 Survey
of Public Participation in the Arts, originally used by Peterson and Kern
(1996).
Control Variables
Previousresearch has shown that childhood participation in organized
activities is stratified by class (Chin & Phillips, 2004;Lareau, 2003), race
(Lareau, Weininger, Conley, & Velez, 2009), and parent income
(Galaskiewicz, Mayorova, & Duckles, 2009). Subsequently, I include
father’s occupation (dummy variable for working class occupation when
respondent was 14 years old), father’s and mother’s education, and race as
control variables. Additionally, I include gender, as women are less likely
to work in managerial occupations (Kanter, 1977), age, as seniority likely
has a strong influence on managerial outcomes, and mother housewife,as
whether an individual’s mother worked outside the home likely affects
childhood socialization.
Data Analysis
Iused binomial logistic regression to examine the effects of competi-
tive socialization on adulthood occupation. Robust standard errors
adjusted for clustering in organizations. Multiple imputation addressed
missing data due to nonresponse. To verify that imputation procedures
did not skew results, I replicated all regressions using listwise deletion
(available upon request from the author), with no major differences in
key measures. Numerous interaction effects were explored, those found
significant were reported. All statistical analyses were conducted in
Stata 12.
230 SHARON KOPPMAN
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents univariate statistics and correlations for all variables used
in the multivariate analysis. The sample was approximately 51 percent
female, 7 percent non-white, 44 percent between 20 and 39 years old (56
percent are over 40), and 15 percent had a graduate’s degree. Forty-two
percent had mothers that completed a four-year degree, and 56 percent had
fathers who did. Eighty percent had fathers who worked in middle-class or
professional occupations (as opposed to working-class occupations), and
36 percent had mothers who were housewives. Fifty-four percent partici-
pated in competitive activities as a child and 47 percent found their first job
in advertising through social networks. On the average, respondents liked
close to six different musical genres, and 40 percent of the total sample
worked in senior management.
Informal Socialization and Managerial Occupations
Ibegan by testing a model with only demographic variables, as shown in
Table 3, Model 1. Following previous research on status attainment,
respondents whose fathers had a college education were two and a half
(e
0.904
=2.469) times as likely to work in a managerial occupation as an
adult. As expected, men and respondents over 40 were also significantly
more likely to work in managerial positions as adults. This model has a
pseudo-r
2
of .256 and correctly predicts the observed values 78 percent of
the time.
In Model 2 I added previously documented mechanisms of social
inequality: cultural capital, social capital, and education. The pseudo-r
2
rose slightly, as did the number of observations correctly predicted by the
model (79 percent). Social capital and education had a significant effect on
the attainment of a managerial position, but the coefficient for cultural
capital was not significant in this sample.
7
Respondents with graduate
degrees (e
0.712
=2.203) and those who used social ties to enter the industry
(e
0.693
=2.000) were twice as likely to be working as managers.
As hypothesized, competitive socialization had a positive and significant
effect on the likelihood of entering a managerial occupation (Model 3).
Respondents who experienced competitive socialization were more than
twice as likely (e
0.759
=2.131) to be in managerial positions as adults.
Interestingly, while having a graduate degree was significant in Model 2,
231The Effect of Competitive Socialization on Managerial Attainment
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix.
Mean SD NMin Max 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Manager 0.401 0.491 334 0 1 1
2. Competitive socialization 0.544 0.499 342 0 1 0.093 1
3. Graduate degree 0.150 0.357 327 0 1 0.160** 0.107 1
4. Social capital 0.469 0.500 334 0 1 0.160** −0.040 −0.032 1
5. Cultural capital 5.740 2.735 334 1 15 0.043 0.106 −0.002 0.000 1
6. Female 0.515 0.501 326 0 1 −0.348*** 0.009 −0.080 −0.020 −0.032 1
7. Under forty 0.441 0.497 322 0 1 −0 474*** 0.094 −0.092 −0.094 −0.039 0.262*** 1
8. Mother’s education 0.423 0.495 324 0 1 −0.069 0.054 0.058 0.088 0.045 0.057 0.273** 1
9. Mother housewife 0.355 0.479 318 0 1 0.168** −0.113* 0.069 −0.019 −0.077 −0.092 0.249** 0.215** 1
10. Father’s education 0.558 0.497 321 0 1 0.095 0.086 0.099 0.048 0.106 −0.057 0.132* 0.431*** 0.045 1
11. Father’s occupation 0.795 0.404 312 0 1 0.036 0.019 0.014 0.035 0.025 −0.072 −0.037 0. 222*** 0.121* 0.420*** 1
Note: *** p<0.001, **p<0.01; *p<0.05.
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Table 3. Logistic Regression Predicting Managerial Attainment.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE B SE
Competitive socialization 0.759** 0.288 0.546 0.394 1.335* 0.555 0.500 0.433
Graduate degree 0.712* 0.345 0.628 0.340 1.191 0.837 −0.920 0.759 1.287* 0.649
Social capital 0.693*** 0.152 0.742*** 0.164 0.799 0.188 1.052** 0.415 0.739*** 0.260
Cultural capital 0.016 0.044 0.001 0.043 0.020 0.048 −0.102 0.091 0.070 0.070
Female −1 219*** 0.246 −1 254*** 0.239 −1.267*** 0.259 −1 577*** 0.266 −0.496 0.500 −1.514*** 0.308
Under forty (young) −2.320*** 0.221 −2.247*** 0.224 −2.353*** 0.235 −4 951*** 0.789 — — — —
Mother’s education 0.148 0.237 0.061 0.237 0.054 0.223 −0.275 0.277 1.238* 0.555 −0.252 0.242
Mother housewife 0.289 0.214 0.301 0.219 0.395 0.229 −0.014 0.302 1.902*** 0.474 −0.019 0.289
Father’s education 0.904* 0.378 0.812* 0.373 0.805* 0.370 0.853* 0.440 0.818 0.546 0.885 0.533
Father’s occupation −0.385 0.327 −0.357 0.347 −0.374 0.365 −0.677 0.406 −0.584 0.781 −0.598 0.406
Competitive ×graduate 0.300 1.439
Competitive ×young 1.157 0.745
Graduate ×young 2.365 2.139
Competitive ×grad ×young −5.439* 2.248
Mother housewife ×young 1.875*** 0.584
Mother education ×young 1.325** 0.535
Female ×young 1.323** 0.475
BIC 372.039 380.894 379.862 402.823 143.970 246.282
Pseudo R
2
0.256 0.276 0.291 0.330 0.179 0.178
N330 330 330 330 141 177
Note: Multiple imputation for missing values, robust tests adjusted for clustering, ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05.
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
once competitive socialization was added the coefficient fell below the
threshold of statistical significance. On the other hand, the coefficient for
social capital increased from the previous model. Standardized, the magni-
tude of social capital (.371) was slightly less than that of informal socializa-
tion (.378). The pseudo-r
2
increased slightly from .276 to .291, the number
of observations correctly predicted by the model dropped slightly (78 per-
cent), and the BIC lowered slightly.
As shown in Model 4, the effects of early experience on managerial
attainment competitive socialization, mother’s education, and whether a
respondent’s mother worked outside the home decreased throughout the
life course. Adding interaction terms produced the highest pseudo-r
2
,
although the rate of correct prediction of observed values did not change
(78 percent) and the BIC rose due to the inclusion of additional para-
meters. As expected, the three-way interaction competitive ×graduate ×age
was statistically significant (β=−5.439, p=0.018). For ease of interpreta-
tion, I ran the models separately for respondents under 40 (Model 5) and
over 40 (Model 6). Competitive socialization had a strong effect in the early
career stages. Respondents under 40 who experienced competitive socializa-
tion were almost four times (e
1.335
=3.800) as likely to work in a managerial
position, although having a graduate degree did not have a significant
effect for this age range. For those over 40, respondents with graduate
degrees were about three-and-a half times as likely (e
1.287
=3.622) to work
as managers, while competitive socialization did not have a significant
effect for this age range.
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, I propose and test a novel relationship between competitive
socialization and adulthood managerial attainment, using survey data from
a probability sample of U.S. advertising agencies. Building on qualitative
work on competitive childhood activities, I show that competitive socializa-
tion has a significant positive effect on an individual’s propensity to work
as a manager in adulthood. The magnitude of this effect is similar to that
of previously specified mechanisms of inequality: formal education and
social capital.
This study refines research on occupational attainment, which has tradi-
tionally relied on formal education as the main driver of social inequality.
While social theorists like Bourdieu and Coleman have long argued that
234 SHARON KOPPMAN
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
informal socialization (particularly through the family) contributes to this
process, relatively little is known about the link between these informal
practices and adulthood outcomes. Drawing on the work of Lareau (2003)
and Levey (2013),I show that informal socialization, particularly participa-
tion in activities that emphasize performance, has a lasting effect on occu-
pational attainment.
My findings reveal that the social stratification of informal socialization
is more complex than originally conceived. Unlike cultural and social capi-
tal, competitive socialization is provided by relatively inexpensive and
easily accessible institutions, like public schools and YMCAs. Competitive
socialization also provides more obvious benefits recognition by class-
mates and recruiters, scholarships, cash prizes, and trophies which
broadens its appeal to the general population. For example, despite the
financial costs, working-class parents are more likely than middle-class par-
ents to enter their children in beauty contests, motivated by the chance to
win cash prizes and possibly start a college savings fund for their child
(Levey, 2009). Sports are similarly perceived as a way out of poverty,
although in reality the likelihood of social mobility through this means is
quite low (Eitzen, 2005). Of course, it would be a stretch to say that the
leveling effects of competitive socialization make up for the stratifying
effects of parental background, education, and social capital, all of which
also had significant effects on managerial attainment. However, it raises
important questions about the effects of different types of socialization.
In conclusion, I offer a friendly critique of Levey’s (2013) notion of a
“competitive habitus.” Organized competitive activities for children were
originally introduced by Progressive Era reformers as a way to educate
immigrants about “American” values (Levey, 2010). Parents today con-
tinue to view these activities as transferring moral values (Fine, 1987;
Shaw & Dawson, 2001). Building on this, Levey (2013) argues that middle-
class children’s participation in competitive activities promotes professional
success by instilling the values (e.g., competitive habitus) needed to succeed
in a competitive society. While my findings appear to support her theory, I
have a somewhat different interpretation of the results. Although the values
transmitted are viewed as universal by those involved in the transfer, they
actually reflect cultural norms. Children and adolescents’ participation in
organized activities promotes the value system of parents, who purposely
select and encourage these activities. Likewise, “success” has different
meanings for different people. While the outcome I selected, managerial
attainment, is certainly desirable for some, this desirability is not universal.
Interestingly, academic colleagues reacting to this work described a lack of
235The Effect of Competitive Socialization on Managerial Attainment
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
competitive socialization in their own experience, despite the fact that they
were successful in a very competitive field. Although this evidence is anec-
dotal, it supports Bourdieu’s (1986) two-dimensional model of class, with
two distinct hierarchies: cultural and economic. Likely, these different hier-
archies are perpetuated by distinct socialization practices. Perhaps, the
desire to succeed in academia, where extrinsic rewards are comparatively
limited, is informed by a different manner of informal socialization.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
DIRECTIONS
To my knowledge, no nationally representative data set exists with
measures for childhood participation in competitive activities. Given this
limitation, I used the data available, which were cross-sectional and limited
to a single industry. Further tests on national samples, preferably longitudi-
nal, are needed to definitively assuage concerns of industry effects, as man-
agement in advertising may be different than in other industries. For
instance, in this sample, the coefficient for competitive socialization was
similar to that of a graduate degree and social capital. It is likely that grad-
uate training is less important in this field than it would be in a more tech-
nical field, such as finance or engineering, while social ties are more
important, due to the more ambiguous quality of the product.
Furthermore, future research is needed to identify the process behind
this correlation. While Levey’s (2013) interviews with parents and children
present strong evidence of internalization during participation, we know lit-
tle about the durability of this disposition. The present study would be
strengthened by interviews with managers about their current work atti-
tudes (particularly those who reported childhood participation in competi-
tive activities). My theory builds from the knowledge that management
positions offer comparatively more extrinsic rewards than other jobs; how-
ever, the presence of rewards does not mean that managers are necessarily
motivated by those rewards. As a result, further research is needed to spe-
cify the mechanism underlying this relationship.
By virtue of its relationship to a higher than average income, managerial
attainment is an outcome of interest to scholars of status inequality.
However, other occupational outcomes are perhaps more relevant to larger
social goals. Future research should differentiate which types of socializa-
tion are related to adulthood employment in a wide range of occupations.
236 SHARON KOPPMAN
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Recent work has shown that young adults who fix cars or build
computers termed “anticipatory socialization” are more likely to
enter engineering professions than those who do not (Cech, Rubineau,
Silbey, & Seron, 2011). Likewise, children with early exposure to a broad
variety of cultural activities and events are more likely to enter creative
occupations (Koppman, 2012). More research is needed develop a deep
understanding of the effects of early experience on a broad range of adult-
hood outcomes.
Changes in the approach to youth education may impact this relation-
ship. As early as the 1930s’, educators argued that competition was
detrimental to child development. As a result, public institutions have
increasingly deemphasized competitive activities (Levey, 2010). Isuspect
that larger trend has little effect on parents who actively pursue competitive
socialization for their children, as opportunities for competition socializa-
tion outside the school continue to expand. Moreover, efforts to de-
emphasize competition are detected by children; for instance, Levey (2009)
found that children assign different value to trophies for participation and
those they have won. Certainly, encouraging competition also has negative
effects, as the popular press is replete with examples of the negative conse-
quences of adolescent competition. For example, over a hundred Harvard
undergraduates are under investigation for cheating in an introductory
course (Perez Pena, 2012); adolescents have been abusing prescription
drugs in response to pressure about grades and college admissions
(Schwartz, 2012); and high school students have been paying other students
to take standardized tests for them (Anderson & Applebome, 2011).
Therefore, this trend has the potential for positive and negative outcomes.
Removing competition from spaces accessible to all children may increase
stratification, if children whose parents do not seek out competitive
socialization are systematically disadvantaged. On the other hand,
de-emphasizing competition may produce a broader understanding of what
“success” means and more openness to the different ways it can be pursued.
NOTES
1. Although a sampling frame of individuals would be preferable, I was unable
to attain a directory of the population despite multiple attempts.
2. This was the desired sample size based on an a priori power analysis con-
ducted using G*Power 3.1. In order to reach 600 organizations, I attempted to
237The Effect of Competitive Socialization on Managerial Attainment
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
contact 875 organizations. Emails were undeliverable primarily due to incorrect
addresses and addresses that would not accept emails from unknown senders.
3. This is a rough approximation. Although I tried to discern if an agency had
multiple IP addresses by examining each addresses’ geographic coordinates and
combining those located at the same location, this does not control for agencies
who, for whatever reason, might have IP addresses located far apart geographically,
as well as individuals who accessed the survey from their mobile devices.
4. Although I requested that the organizational contact forward the survey to
everyone in the organization, it is unlikely every contact complied. A recent study
of email forwarding behavior found that only 55 percent of emails (in the study’s
most relevant category, “work-related”) requesting to be passed along were actually
forwarded (Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry, & Raman, 2004). In my sample, only 42
IP addresses were used more than once, indicating that only 21 percent of the 202
initial contacts forwarded the email to their colleagues. Using the IP addresses
cross-referenced with the email addresses provided by respondents for the drawing,
I identified the 42 organizations that forwarded the email, along with their size
listed in the Redbook. The sum of all organization sizes who forwarded the email
was 878. Summing this with the contacts that did not forward the survey but took it
themselves (160), produces 1038 potential respondents.
5. Models were run with education measured as a bachelor’s degree and as a
graduate degree. Only a graduate degree had a statistically significant effect on the
dependent variable.
6. With the “other” option I was often unable to distinguish between “strong”
and “weak” ties, but this is not a problem for the analysis at hand which does not
seek to distinguish between types of ties.
7. The lack of an effect for cultural capital is likely due to specific industry
sampled. In advertising, employees with cultural capital are more likely to work as
copywriters, graphic artists, and creative directors (Koppman, 2012).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Ron Breiger, Erin Leahey, and Jane Zavisca, for their
continued guidance, encouragement, and support. This study was sup-
ported by a dissertation improvement grant from the National Science
Foundation (no. SES-1131157). Additionally, I am grateful to Marc-David
L. Seidel and Henrich R. Greve, for their insightful comments on an earlier
draft of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
238 SHARON KOPPMAN
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Social reproduction and the corporate other. The Sociological
Quarterly,35(2), 309328.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review,3(3),
185201.
Anderson, J., & Applebome, P. (2011). Exam cheating on Long Island hardly a secret.
New York Times, December 1.
Aschaffenburg, K., & Maas, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics of
social reproduction. American Sociological Review,62(4), 573587.
Bielby, W. T. (1981). Models of status attainment. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility,1,326.
Blau, J. R., & Blau, P. M. (1982). The cost of inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent
crime. American Sociological Review,47(1), 114129.
Blau, P. M. (1992). Mobility and status attainment. Contemporary Sociology,21(5), 596598.
Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Bodovski, K., & Farkas, G. (2008). “Concerted cultivation” and unequal achievement in ele-
mentary school. Social Science Research,37(3), 903919.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Readings in Economic Sociology, 280291.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Breen, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2005). Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective:
Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of
Sociology,31, 223243.
Burt, R. S. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Calarco, J. M. C. (2011). “I Need Help!” Social class and children’s help-seeking in elementary
school. American Sociological Review,76(6), 862882.
Cech, E., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and gen-
dered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review,76(5), 641666.
Cech, E. (forthcoming). The self-expressive edge of sex segregation. American Journal of
Sociology. San Diego, CA: University of California.
Chin, T., & Phillips, M. (2004). Social reproduction and child-rearing practices: Social class,
children’s agency, and the summer activity gap. Sociology of Education,77(3), 185210.
Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher,16(6), 3238.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology,94(S), 95120.
Comer, J. P., & Edelman, M. W. (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project.
New York: Free Press
Crouter, A. C., & Booth, A. (2004). Work-family challenges for low-income parents and their
children. London, UK: Routledge.
DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture partici-
pation on the grades of US high school students. American Sociological Review,47(2),
189201.
DiMaggio, P., & Mohr, J. (1985). Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selec-
tion. The American Journal of Sociology,90(6), 12311261.
Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental invol-
vement in elementary school. Sociology of education,78(3), 233249.
239The Effect of Competitive Socialization on Managerial Attainment
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic
Journal,111(473), 465484.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review,14(4), 532550.
Eitzen, D. S. (2005). Upward mobility through sports? The myths and realities. Sport in
Contemporary Society: An Anthology, 249256.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and
improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Erickson, B. H. (1996). Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology,102(1),
217251.
Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A growth modeling
analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education,70(1), 2761.
Featherman, D. L. (1996). Social stratification and mobility: Two decades of cumulative social
science. Class: Critical Concepts,2, 76.
Fehrmann, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M. (1987). Home influence on school learning:
Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school grades. The Journal
of Educational Research,80(6), 330337.
Fine, G. A. (1987). With the boys: Little League baseball and preadolescent culture. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Galaskiewicz, J., Mayorova, O., & Duckles, B. (2009). Studying the roles of nonprofits,
government, and business in providing activities and services to youth in the Phoenix
Metropolitan Area. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
647(1), 5082.
Goldberg, A. (2011). Mapping shared understandings using relational class analysis: The case
of the cultural omnivore reexamined. American Journal of Sociology,116(5),
13971436.
Granovetter, M. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,16(2), 250279.
Hofferth, S. L., & Sandberg, J. F. (2001). How American children spend their time. Journal of
Marriage and Family,63(2), 295308.
Illsley, R., & Svensson, P. G. (1990). Health inequities in Europe. Social Science and Medicine,
31(3), 223420.
Jarrett, R. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Watkins, N. D. (2004). Developing social capital through par-
ticipation in organized youth programs: Qualitative insights from three programs.
Journal of Community Psychology,33(1), 4155.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey
response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly,68(1), 94.
Kaufman, J., & Gabler, J. (2004). Cultural capital and the extracurricular activities of girls
and boys in the college attainment process. Poetics,32(2), 145168.
Koppman, S. (2012). Entering the Creative Class: The Role of High-Status Culture. Paper
presented at the University of Arizona Inequality Workshop, Tucson, AZ.
Kracman, K. (1996). The effect of school-based arts instruction on attendance at museums
and the performing arts. Poetics,24(2-4), 203218.
Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and American
upper-middle class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
240 SHARON KOPPMAN
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of
cultural capital. Sociology of Education,60(2), 7385.
Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary educa-
tion. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Pub Incorporated.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Lareau, A., & Lamont, M. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in recent
theoretical developments. Sociological Theory,6(2), 153168.
Lareau, A., Weininger, E., Conley, D., & Velez, M. (2009, February). Time use, religion, and
children’s organized activities. Paper presented at the University of Pennsylvania
Population Seminar, Philadelphia, PA.
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2008). Time, work, and family life: Reconceptualizing
gendered time patterns through the case of children’s organized activities. Sociological
Forum,23(3), 419454.
Levey, H. (2009). Pageant princesses and math whizzes. Childhood,16(2), 195212.
Levey, H. (2010). Outside class: A historical analysis of American children’s competitive activ-
ities. Childhood in American Society, 342354.
Levey, H. L. (2013). Playing to win: Raising children in a competitive culture. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural
factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review,46(4),
393405.
Mallia, K. (2009). Rare birds: Why so few women become ad agency creative directors.
Advertising & Society Review,10(3).
Milne, A. M., Myers, D. E., Rosenthal, A. S., & Ginsburg, A. (1986). Single parents, working
mothers, and the educational achievement of school children. Sociology of Education,
59(3), 125139.
Muller, C. (1998). Gender differences in parental involvement and adolescents’ mathematics
achievement. Sociology of Education,71(4), 336356.
Perez Pena, R. (2012). Harvard students in cheating scandal say collaboration was accepted.
New York Times, August 31.
Peterson, R. A., & Kern, R. M. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore.
American Sociological Review,61(5), 900907.
Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral marketing or elec-
tronic word-of-mouth advertising: Examining consumer responses and motivations to
pass along email. Journal of Advertising Research,44(4), 333348.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. The City Reader,
120128.
Reay, D. (1998). Class work: Mothers’ involvement in their children’s primary schooling.
London, UK: Routledge.
Reid, L. N., & King, K. W. (2003). Agency creatives like TV advertising best. Newspaper
Research Journal,24(3), 622.
Reid, L. N., King, K. W., & DeLorme, D. E. (1998). Top-level agency creatives look at adver-
tising creativity then and now. Journal of Advertising,27(2), 116.
Rivera, L. A. (2010). Status distinctions in interaction: Social selection and exclusion at an elite
nightclub. Qualitative Sociology,33(3), 229255.
Rivera, L. A. (2011). Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: Elite employers’ use of educational
credentials. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility,29(1), 7190.
241The Effect of Competitive Socialization on Managerial Attainment
(C) Emerald Group Publishing
Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching the case of elite professional service firms.
American Sociological Review,77(6), 9991022.
Rosenfeld, A. A., Wise, N., & Coles, R. (2001). The over-scheduled child: Avoiding the hyper-
parenting trap. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Schleef, D. J. (2006). Managing elites: Professional socialization in law and business schools.
Oxford, UK: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers.
Schwartz, A. (2012). Risky rise of the good-grade pill. New York Times, June 9.
Sewell, W. H., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). Education, occupation, and earnings. Achievement in
the early career. New York: Academic Press Inc.
Shaw, S. M., & Dawson, D. (2001). Purposive leisure: Examining parental discourses on
family activities. Leisure Sciences,23(4), 217231.
Stevens, M. L. (2009). Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Press.
Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and the child’s school per-
formance. Child Development,58(5), 13481357.
Swain, W. N. (2004). Perceptions of IMC after a decade of development: Who’s at the wheel,
and how can we measure success? Journal of Advertising Research,44(1), 4665.
Swain, W. N. (2005). Perceptions of interactivity and consumer control in marketing commu-
nication: An exploratory survey of marketing communication professionals. Journal of
Interactive Advertising,6(1), 109124.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Service annual review 2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Commerce.
U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, March). Occupational outlook
handbook, 20102011: Advertising and public relations services. Retrieved from: http://
www.bls.gov/ooh/management/advertising-promotions-and-marketing-managers.htm
Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parents’ involvement in children’s
placement. Sociology of Education,65(4), 263279.
Van Maanen, J. E., & Schein, E. H. (1977). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
242 SHARON KOPPMAN
