ArticlePDF Available


Given that women continue to be underrepresented in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) and that scientific innovations are increasingly produced by team collaborations, we reviewed the existing literature regarding the effects of gender diversity on team processes and performance. Recent evidence strongly suggests that team collaboration is greatly improved by the presence of women in the group, and this effect is primarily explained by benefits to group processes. The evidence concerning the effect of gender diversity on team performance is more equivocal and contingent upon a variety of contextual factors. In light of the importance of collaboration in science, promoting the role of women in the field can have positive practical consequences for science and technology.
© Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining 2011 DOI 10.1179/030801811X13013181961473
Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE REVIEWS, Vol. 36 No. 2, June, 2011, 146–53
The Role of Gender in Team
Collaboration and Performance
Julia B Bear
Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Anita Williams Woolley
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
Given that women continue to be underrepresented in STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math) and that scientific innovations are
increasingly produced by team collaborations, we reviewed the existing
literature regarding the effects of gender diversity on team processes and
performance. Recent evidence strongly suggests that team collaboration is
greatly improved by the presence of women in the group, and this effect is
primarily explained by benefits to group processes. The evidence concerning
the effect of gender diversity on team performance is more equivocal and
contingent upon a variety of contextual factors. In light of the importance of
collaboration in science, promoting the role of women in the field can have
positive practical consequences for science and technology.
keywords Collective intelligence, Team work, Women in science, Gender
diversity of teams, Team performance
Women continue to be underrepresented in STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math) on multiple levels, ranging from undergraduate and
graduate enrolment to positions in industry and at universities (National
Science Foundation 2009). Though some progress has been made to close this
gender gap in the past few decades with women’s enrollment increasing in
Bachelors and Masters degree programmes, the gap persists, especially in
managerial and other top-level positions in both corporations and academe.
A variety of reasons have been given for this gender gap, including bias and
discrimination, a lack of role models, differential access to social networks,
and issues related to work-life balance and family responsibilities (Blackwell
et al. 2009; Blickenstaff 2005; Fox 1991; Kyvik and Teigen 1996; Sonnert et al.
2007). In light of these potential causes, governments and universities conduct
mentoring and career development programmes for women specifically
aimed at closing this gap (Blickenstaff 2005; Cronin and Roger 1999). Thus,
the causes and proposed solutions are primarily framed on the individual
level, i.e. in terms of the way individual women confront these issues (Corley
2005). However, scientific work is not conducted in isolation, and scholars
have also pointed out the necessity of institutional solutions for closing the
gender gap (Corley 2005).
We maintain that, between the individual and institutional levels, there is
another level that plays a crucial role in scientific work — teams. Indeed, a
recent review of decades of scientific articles and patent applications has
revealed that our most important scientific innovations are increasingly
produced by collaborating teams (Wuchty et al. 2007). Moreover, recent
evidence strongly suggests that group collaboration is greatly improved by
the presence of women in the group (Woolley et al. 2010). Taken together,
these recent findings imply that promoting the role of women in STEM can
have positive consequences for scientific productivity by enhancing the
quality of collaboration taking place in teams. Thus, in order to both promote
more successful collaborations as well as improve our understanding of the
persistent gender gap in science, it is important to examine the effect of
gender diversity on team collaborations. With these aims in mind, we review
the existing evidence regarding the effects of gender diversity on team
processes and performance.
Effects of gender diversity on team process and performance
Does gender diversity matter for team processes and performance? This
question has been the subject of numerous empirical studies, meta-analyses
and literature reviews (e.g. Baugh and Graen 1997; Bowers et al. 2000;
Chatman and O’Reilly 2004; Ely and Thomas 2001; Jackson et al. 2003; Joshi
and Roh 2009; Mannix and Neale 2005; Myaskovsky et al. 2005; Pelled 1996;
Stewart 2006; Webber and Donahue 2001). Overall, existing research suggests
that gender diversity can have a positive effect on group process, while its
effect on performance is fairly equivocal and dependent to some degree upon
the context of the work.
In terms of group process, recent evidence strongly suggests that group
collaboration, as indexed by collective intelligence, is greatly improved by
the presence of women in the group (Woolley et al. 2010). The collective
intelligence of a system resides in the connections among the units and their
patterns of behaviour (Losada and Heaphy 2004). Collectively intelligent
patterns of behaviour are responsive to the accomplishment of desired
outcomes, rather than the mindless enactment of prescribed processes or
routines. This is akin to the ‘heedful interrelating’ discussed by Weick and
Roberts (1993) as supportive of the development of collective mind. ‘Heedful
performance is not the same thing as habitual performance. In habitual
action, each performance is a replica of its predecessor, whereas in heedful
performance, each action is modified by its predecessor (Weick and Roberts
1993, 362). Thus, collective intelligence is evident in the consistency of the
outcome quality a collective produces across domains, as a result of the
responsiveness of members to one another and to the shifting performance
contingencies in dynamic situations.
Woolley et al. (2010) found that the proportion of women in a group is
strongly related to the group’s measured collective intelligence. Upon further
examination, they found that the effects were explained in part by the higher
levels of social sensitivity exhibited by women, based on their greater ability
to read nonverbal cues and make accurate inferences about what others are
feeling or thinking. Groups with more women also exhibited greater equality
in conversational turn-taking, further enabling the group members to be
responsive to one another and to make the best use of the knowledge and
skills of members.
The findings of Woolley et al. (2010) are consistent with related research
on the effects of gender diversity on group process. In a study of group
performance in a business simulation, Fenwick and Neal (2001) found that
groups with equal numbers of men and women and/or groups with a greater
number of women than men performed better than homogeneous groups
on a management simulation task, and this effect was explained by more
effective collaborative group processes and cooperative norms. Likewise, a
study by Jehn and Bezrukova reported in Kochan et al. (2003) found that
gender diversity increased constructive group processes. In some cases,
however, the effects of gender diversity on group process also depend to
some extent on context. For example, in a study of a Fortune 500 firm in the
information processing industry by Joshi and Jackson, also reported in
Kochan et al. (2003), the authors initially found no effects for team-level
gender diversity on team cooperation. However, when they included regional
location of the teams in the analysis, they found a positive relationship
between team gender diversity and team cooperation within regions that
were diverse in terms of gender. Thus, contextual effects also play a role in
the effects of gender diversity on team processes.
These findings concerning the effect of gender diversity on group
process are also consistent with past work examining the effect of gender
on interpersonal communication in groups (Carli 2010). For example, in a
meta-analysis comparing men and women in terms of task and interpersonal
styles, Eagly and Johnson (1990) found that women were significantly more
interpersonally oriented than men. Men’s style was more autocratic than
women’s, i.e. involved giving orders, whereas women’s style was more
democratic than men’s, i.e. focused on participation. In addition, when
comparing all-female versus all-male groups, all-female groups demonstrate
more egalitarian behaviours, such as equal amounts of communication
among group members and shared leadership (Berdahl and Anderson 2005;
Schmid-Mast 2001). Finally, in conversation, men display more social
dominance-related behaviour while speaking than women, such as chin
thrusts, gesturing, and direct eye contact, while women engage in more
smiling whether they are speaking or listening (Dovidio et al. 1988).
These different interpersonal styles may help to explain the positive effect
of gender diversity on team processes and collaboration, since greater gender
heterogeneity increases the likelihood of participation among team members.
Research on gender and influence in groups has shown that men‘s and
women’s level of influence is most equal in gender-balanced groups, further
reinforcing the relationship between heterogeneous gender composition of
groups and improved group process (Carli 2001; Craig and Sherif 1986; Taps
and Martin 1990). In addition, in an experimental study in which solo versus
majority status was manipulated (groups with two women and one man and
vice versa), solo women were less talkative than women in the majority
whereas the opposite was true for men (Myaskovsky et al. 2005). Similarly,
gender diversity also appears to have a positive effect on the psychological
experience of group members, with members of heterogeneous groups
reporting greater feelings of efficacy about their tasks (Lee and Farh 2004)
and better morale (Jehn et al. 1999) than members of homogeneous groups. In
sum, gender diversity benefits group processes in a variety of ways, and these
benefits appear to stem from gender differences in attitudes and behaviours
during group interactions.
In evaluating group performance, the effects of gender diversity become
slightly more complex. The results of several meta-analyses have shown
either no effects or slightly negative effects for gender heterogeneity of team
members on team performance, which is typically measured in terms of both
objective performance indicators, such as financial outcomes, as well as
subjective ratings of team effectiveness by team members and/or supervisors
(Bowers et al. 2000; Jackson et al. 2003; Stewart 2006; Webber and Donahue
2001). Other research has shown that the effect of gender diversity on team
performance depends upon a variety of moderators, such as task difficulty
(Bowers et al. 2000), type of team (Stewart 2006), the presence and activation
of social divisions or ‘faultlines’ within the team (Lau and Murnighan 1998;
Pearsall et al. 2008), and the other types of demographic diversity present in
the team (Pelled et al. 1999).
However, some scholars maintain that the preponderance of equivocal
findings does not mean that the effects of gender diversity are non-existent,
but rather that the effects should be investigated in light of organizational
context (Joshi and Roh 2009; Kochan et al. 2003). They argue that, since
empirical work on diversity in teams grew out of self-categorization theory
(Tajfel 1981), which concerns the ways in which the salience of differences
among team members can lead to certain attitudes and behaviours, contextual
factors become paramount for understanding the influence of diversity. In
other words, in male-dominated professions, where women are likely to be in
the significant minority, initially gender diversity is likely to have more
negative effects, given that gender stereotypes are more salient due to the
increased categorization of underrepresented women (Kanter 1977). In
contrast, in gender-balanced professions, negative stereotyping and
categorization by gender are less likely to occur and thus gender diversity
should be less problematic. This point is especially relevant to understanding
the role of gender diversity in STEM, given that most STEM professions tend
to be male-dominated.
Indeed, research shows that in occupations dominated by males, such as
teams of engineers, gender diversity has strong, negative effects on team
performance, whereas in gender-balanced occupations, gender diversity has
significantly positive effects on team performance both in terms of objective
(e.g. financial outcomes, product quality) and subjective (e.g. self-rating,
supervisor rating) measures (Joshi and Roh 2009). These findings are
consistent with the work of Allmendinger and Hackman (1995) on the
integration of women into symphony orchestras. The integration of women
into male-dominated orchestras led to declines in member satisfaction and
social functioning when the proportion of women was below 50%, but as the
proportion increased, those trends flattened or reversed (Allmendinger and
Hackman 1995). This suggests that integrating women into traditionally
male-dominated fields may be difficult initially, but should get better as their
representation approaches parity with men. These effects should accrue as
greater participation of women in a setting allows for negative stereotypes
to fade and for their expertise and contributions to be more accurately
recognized. For example, in examining scientific collaboration more directly,
Joshi (2010) found no effects for gender composition of teams on productivity
and innovation, but found that when women’s influence in the group was
misaligned with their expertise (i.e. they had more expertise than others
attributed to them), the productivity of the team was negatively affected.
Implications for scientific teams
Overall, the findings from the literature concerning the effect of gender
diversity on team performance suggest benefits for team process but mixed
results for team outcomes. Despite the somewhat equivocal nature of the
literature, two consistent themes emerge — the importance of context in
moderating the effects of gender diversity on performance and the generally
positive effects of gender diversity on group processes. Both of these themes
are extremely relevant to scientific work and should also be taken into
consideration in light of the persistent gender gap in STEM.
Given that gender diversity is more likely to have a negative effect on
performance in male-dominated versus gender-balanced industries (Joshi and
Roh 2009), the lack of gender balance in scientific teams may be detrimental
to scientific innovation. Furthermore, the aforementioned research implies
that gender-balanced teams lead to the best outcomes for group process in
terms of men and women having equal influence (Carli 2001; Craig and Sherif
1986; Taps and Martin 1990), participating at an equivalent rate (Myaskovsky
et al. 2005) and being satisfied with their group collaboration experiences
overall (Jehn et al. 1999). Thus, having a few ‘token’ women on scientific
teams does not appear to be sufficient in order to improve performance, and,
based on past research could even have detrimental social consequence in the
short term (Allmendinger and Hackman 1995). In addition, scientific research
is conducted within teams of individuals with varying levels of expertise, in
varying career phases, and with a variety of demographic differences such as
gender, age, ethnicity and national origin. As Joshi (2010) demonstrated, in
this context, the effect of gender on performance may interact with other
dimensions of diversity such as expertise and status within the team, leading
the expertise of women to be underutilized, to the team’s detriment. In sum,
the underrepresentation of women in STEM not only means that scientific
teams may be missing out on female talent, but it also means that the women
who are members of STEM teams may not be participating to their fullest if
they are a significant numerical minority or solo members of teams.
Furthermore, the positive effects of gender diversity on group processes
are extremely relevant to scientific teams, since scientific discoveries are
increasingly the products of team collaboration (Wuchty et al. 2007). As
Woolley et al. (2010) showed, enhanced interaction and communication in
teams with greater numbers of women, as well as egalitarian rather than
autocratic norms, improve group processes, which, in turn, facilitate increased
collective intelligence. Collective intelligence is not correlated with the
intelligence of individual group members but rather with the quality of the
social interaction processes within the group, which are correlated with
the proportion of females in the group. Given the degree to which collective
intelligence predicts performance on innovative tasks as demonstrated by
Woolley et al. (2010), it is critical to higher levels of performance in the
scientific domain.
Gender diversity in STEM is often advocated for social and political reasons.
To be sure, enabling equal access to and participation in STEM fields is a
worthy social goal in and of itself. However, based on the evidence regarding
the effects of gender balance in teams, gender diversity can also enhance
group processes, which are increasingly important as collaboration becomes
a centrepiece in the production of science. The enhancement of group
processes and higher levels of collective intelligence can, in turn, lead to
greater innovation and scientific discovery. Thus, the findings reviewed here
imply that, when evaluating the gender gap in STEM, it is not enough to
simply examine the number of women in a particular institution or role. In
order to reap the rewards of gender diversity, it would be most beneficial to
ensure that women are represented in collaborative scientific teams at parity
to men. Thus, the current focus by universities and industry on individual
women’s career paths as a way to increase the number of professional women
in STEM is laudable. However, in order to be truly effective, the role that
women play in scientific teams should also be taken into consideration and
promoted in order to yield the substantial benefits of increased gender
Allmendinger, Ju! a, and Richard J. Hackman. 1995. The more, the be! er? A four-nation study of the
inclusion of women in symphony orchestras. Social Forces 74(2): 423–60.
Baugh, S. Gayle, and George B. Graen. 1997. E ects of team gender and racial composition on
perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group & Organization Management 22:
Berdahl, Jennifer, H., and Cameron Anderson. 2005. Men, women and leadership centralization in
groups over time. Group Dynamics 9: 45–57.
Blackwell, Lauren V., Lori A. Snyder, and Catherine Mavriplis. 2009. Diverse faculty in STEM Þ elds:
A! itudes, performance, and fair treatment. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 2(4): 195–205.
Blickensta , Jacob C. 2005. Women in science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender Þ lter? Gender and
Education 17: 369–86.
Bowers, Clint A., James A. Pharmer, and Eduardo Salas. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in
work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research 31(3): 305–27.
Carli, Linda L. 2001. Gender and social inß uence. Journal of Social Issues 57(4): 725–41.
Carli, Linda L. 2010. Gender and group behavior. In Handbook of gender research in psychology, ed. Joan C.
Chrisler and Donald R. McCreary. New York: Springer.
Chatman, Jennifer A., and Charles A. O’Reilly. 2004. Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity
among men and women. Academy of Management Journal 47: 193–208.
Corley, Elizabeth A. 2005. How do career strategies, gender, and work environment a ect faculty
productivity levels in university-based science centers? Review of Policy Research 22(5): 537–655.
Craig, Jane M., and Carolyn W. Sherif. 1986. The e ectiveness of men and women in problem-solving
groups as a function of group gender composition. Sex Roles 14: 453–66.
Cronin, Catherine, and Angela Roger. 1999. Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering, and
technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(6): 639–61.
Dovidio, John F., Cli ord E. Brown, Karen Heltman, Steve L. Ellyson, and Caroline F. Keating. 1988.
Power displays between men and women in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel
study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 580–7.
Eagly, Alice H., and Blair T. Johnson. 1990. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin 108: 233–56.
Ely, Robin J., and David A. Thomas. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The e ects of diversity
perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(2): 229–73.
Fenwick, Graham, D., and Derrick J. Neal. 2001. E ect of gender composition on group performance.
Gender, Work and Organization 8(2): 205–25.
Fox, Mary F. 1991. Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity. In The outer circle, ed.
H. Zuckerman, J. Cole, and J. Bruer, 188–204. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Jackson, Susan E., Aparna Joshi, and Niclas L. Erhardt. 2003. Recent research on team and
organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management 29: 801–30.
Jehn, Karen A., Gregory B. Northcra# , and Margaret A. Neale. 1999. Why di erences make a di erence:
A Þ eld study of diversity, conß ict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly
Joshi, Aparna. 2010. Gender-based e ects in ‘team science’: Integrating alter, ego, and team level
perspectives. Working paper. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Joshi, Aparna, and Hyuntak Roh. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research:
A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal 52(3): 599–627.
Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977. Some e ects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to
token women. The American Journal of Sociology 82(5): 965–90.
Kochan, Thomas, Katerina Bezrukova, Robin Ely, Susan Jackson, Aparna Joshi, Karen Jehn, Jonathan
Leonard, David Levine, and David Thomas. 2003. The e ects of diversity on business performance:
Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management 42(1): 3–21.
Kyvik, Svein, and Mari Teigen. 1996. Child care, research collaboration, and gender di erences in
scientiÞ c productivity. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21(1): 54–71.
Lau, Dora C., and Keith J. Murnighan. 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional
dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review 23: 325–40.
Lee, Cynthia, and Jiing-Lih Farh. 2004. Joint e ects of group e cacy and gender diversity on group
cohesion and performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review 53(1): 136–54.
Losada, Marcial, and Emily Heaphy. 2004. The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of
business teams. American Behavioral Scientist 47(6): 740–65.
Mannix, Elizabeth, and Margaret A. Neale. 2005. What di erences make a di erence? The promise and
reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6(2): 31–55.
Myaskovsky, Larissa, Emily Unikel, and Mary A. Dew. 2005. E ects of gender diversity on performance
and interpersonal behavior in small work groups. Sex Roles 52(9–10): 645–57.
National Science Foundation. 2009. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and
engineering. Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF 09-305. Arlington, VA. h! p://
statistics/wmpd. (21/03/2011)
Pearsall, Ma! hew J., Alexander P.J. Ellis, and Joel M. Evans. 2008. Unlocking the e ects of gender
faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1): 225–34.
Pelled, Lisa H. 1996. Demographic diversity, conß ict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process
theory. Organization Science 7(6): 615–31.
Pelled, Lisa H., Kathleen Eisenhardt, and Katherine Xin. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of
workgroup diversity, conß ict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 1–28.
Schmid-Mast, Marianne. 2001. Gender di erences and similarities in dominance hierarchies in
same-gender groups based on speaking time. Sex Roles 44: 537–56.
Sonnert, Gerhard, Mary F. Fox, and Kristen Adkins. 2007. Undergraduate women in science and
engineering: E ects of faculty, Þ elds, and institutions over time. Social Science Quarterly 88: 1333–56.
Stewart, Greg, L. 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team
performance. Journal of Management 32(1): 29–54.
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taps, Judith, and Patricia Y. Martin. 1990. Gender composition, a! ributional accounts, and women’s
inß uence and likability in task groups. Small Group Research 21: 471–91.
Webber, Sheila, S., and Lisa M. Donahue. 2001. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work
group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management 27: 141–62.
Weick, Kael, E., and Karlene, H. Roberts. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating
on ß ight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3): 357–81.
Woolley, Anita, W., Christopher F. Chabris, Alexander Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W. Malone.
2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science
Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in
production of knowledge. Science 316(5827): 1036–9.
Notes on contributors
Dr Julia Bear is currently a Fulbright Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Technion —
Israel Institute of Technology. She received her PhD in Organizational
Behavior from Carnegie Mellon University. Her research interests include
gender, negotiation, and conflict management.
Correspondence to:
Professor Anita Williams Woolley is an assistant professor of Organizational
Behavior and Theory at the Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon
University. She received her PhD in Organizational Behavior from Harvard
University. She conducts research on collective intelligence and team
Correspondence to:
... One study found demographic diversity attributes can significantly impact the group's results, compared to group members with similar "thinking styles" (e.g., from the same country) [93]. Gender diversity can impact group work [7]. Individual differences and epistemic needs are also shown to affect individuals' productivity [77]. ...
... Future studies can collect participants' interactions with the whiteboards to trace individuals' contributions across the different stages of the process. A main limitation of our work is gender diversity, which is known to have a significant impact on group work [7]. Unfortunately, this was a contextual constrain of our setting -only two women participated in our study. ...
Full-text available
Group work involves a myriad of complex processes encompassing social, perceptual, cognitive, and contextual factors. However, there is a lack of empirical research on computer-supported group work processes and their impact on outcomes at different stages of group work, especially when creativity and quality of outcomes are significant. Group work processes can interfere and hinder productivity, which we refer to as the "group folding effect. " We designed a three-stage process structuring to enhance group work productivity. In a field study, we examined how process structuring shapes productivity in two sub-studies: design and peer feedback, each with 40 participants (N = 40). The results revealed that process structuring significantly improved both the quantity and quality of productivity. Additionally, process structuring appeared to reduce inhibitory effects of group work, such as negative priming, fixation on familiar ideas, and social comparison. We discuss the implications of this research in supporting productive group work processes in collaborative tools and insights into a pattern of the group folding effect.
... As expected by the literature 5,[9][10][11]63 , we find that gender diversity is positively related to creativity in video game projects, even without considering inclusion. Considering games as units of analysis, one standard deviation increase in gender diversity results in 0.09 (95% CI 0.06; 0.12) standard deviation increase in creativity (as shown on Fig. 3 Panel b). ...
... As others have already found, we have also shown that gender diversity is a predictor of creativity [9][10][11]63 : adding females to a team in a male-dominated industry like video game development contributes to the distinctiveness of the final product. However, it is not enough to add female developers to a team, but female team members should ...
Full-text available
Several studies have highlighted the potential contribution of gender diversity to creativity, also noted challenges stemming from conflicts and a deficit of trust. Thus, we argue that gender diversity requires inclusion as well to see increased collective creativity. We analyzed teams in 4011 video game projects, recording weighted network data from past collaborations. We developed four measures of inclusion, based on de-segregation, strong ties across genders, and the incorporation of women into the core of the team’s network. We measured creativity by the distinctiveness of game features compared to prior games. Our results show that gender diversity without inclusion does not contribute to creativity, while at maximal inclusion one standard deviation change in diversity results in .04–.09 standard deviation increase in creativity. On the flipside, at maximal inclusion but low diversity (when there is a ‘token’ female team member highly integrated in a male network) we see a negative impact on creativity. Considering the history of game projects in a developer firm, we see that adding diversity first, and developing inclusion later can lead to higher diversity and inclusion, compared to the alternative of recruiting developers with already existing cross-gender ties. This suggests that developer firms should encourage building inclusive collaboration ties in-house.
... Thus, it is not surprising, that the average age of participants is quite high, as many people in Switzerland can only afford a house later in life. The predominance of men in the participant group is not surprising either, as affinity and selfefficacy for energy and technology-related topics tend to be more prevalent in men [80,81], thus more men will participate in such processes if recruitment does not explicitly aim for a gender balance [82]. ...
Full-text available
While reducing individual energy consumption contributes to climate change mitigation, many individuals who share this belief fail to act on it. While behavioural interventions try to address such intention-behaviour gaps, few approaches have worked with consumers to understand the realities of their opportunities and limitations to save energy at home. We argue that co-design is well-suited to address the unique challenges of climate-relevant behaviour change and propose an abductive co-design methodology to develop a behavioural intervention with household members based on the Model of Action Phases (MAP) framework. We implement the methodology to design an energy savings app and behaviour change intervention in Switzerland. The methodology shifts participants into an expert role and elucidates their motivations, real-life challenges, and knowledge gaps to save energy. Through group problem-solving and self-reflection, participants provided design inputs which address the socio-psychological gaps to progress behaviour through the preaction, action and postaction phases of the MAP. We assess the originality and feasibility of the co-design inputs, as well as reflect on the experience of the researchers and participants during the process. We conclude that co-design provided novel inputs relevant for progressing through the behaviour change stages identified by the MAP framework.
... Men and women bring different perspectives to their life journeys, exposing various aspects of human existence. This symbiotic partnership is a tribute to gender's natural interconnectedness, a collaboration that enhances the human story (Bear & Woolley, 2011). Recognizing the significance of experience in human existence reveals that the concept of protection takes on a multidimensional dimension, notably in the case of women. ...
Full-text available
This research reexamines the relevance of Manusmriti in repairing the damaged relationship between men and women, which has been compounded by the significant alterations brought about by liberalization. Traditional frameworks have been disrupted as gender roles have undergone tremendous alteration, resulting in tensions and inequities. This study dives into the Manusmriti's lessons outside their historical context, stressing its potential to provide insights towards developing more harmonious gender interactions. The report also highlights the importance of human experience as a backdrop, recognizing the intricate interplay between individual goals and community cohesion. This research aims to contribute to an enriched discourse that seeks to restore equilibrium within relationships and rejuvenate the woven fabric of human experience in the contemporary context by shedding light on Manusmriti's principles of mutual respect, shared responsibilities, and balanced roles.
... Specifically, Social Sciences are a relatively more gender-balanced research area. Our finding is aligned with previous results that in gender-balanced environments, diversity is more beneficial (Bear & Woolley, 2011;Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007;Joshi, 2014). ...
Full-text available
Online science dissemination has quickly become crucial in promoting scholars' work. Recent literature has demonstrated a lack of visibility for women's research, where women's articles receive fewer academic citations than men's. The informetric and scientometric community has briefly examined gender-based inequalities in online visibility. However, the link between online sharing of scientific work and citation impact for teams with different gender compositions remains understudied. Here we explore whether online visibility is helping women overcome the gender-based citation penalty. Our analyses cover the three broad research areas of Computer Science, Engineering, and Social Sciences, which have different gender representation, adoption of online science dissemination practices, and citation culture. We create a quasi-experimental setting by applying Coarsened Exact Matching, which enables us to isolate the effects of team gender composition and online visibility on the number of citations. We find that online visibility positively affects citations across research areas, while team gender composition interacts differently with visibility in these research areas. Our results provide essential insights into gendered citation patterns and online visibility, inviting informed discussions about decreasing the citation gap.
... In the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) domain, negative learning experiences for females due to gender biases at the technical level have been reported [51,52]. In the business domain, females' higher management ability in group tasks was highlighted [7,16,22]. Previous research has also shown that during cognitive tests, females have better information-processing skills than males [58,60]. In Andersson's study [1] on explicit spatial and verbal collaborative memory performance, the author reported better retention performance for females, but he argued that there was no main gender effect on team performance. ...
Full-text available
While anatomy learning is an essential part of medical education, there remain significant challenges in traditional learning methods, In this paper, we introduce two in-house anatomy training solutions that can visualize and superimpose 3D virtual anatomy models with informative labels using a hand-held tablet or a wide-screen AR. To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed tablet-based 3D visualization and AR tools, we conducted a large-scale study with 236 students enrolled in undergraduate premedical programs (95 M, 141F in 118 dyadic teams). In this study, participant students were split into three groups to use one of the following learning tools in a team-based anatomy painting activity: (1) conventional textbook, (2) hand-held tablet-based 3D visualization, and (3) screen-based AR. The results showed that students who used the tablet-based visualization tool or the AR learning tool reported significantly higher (more positive) learning experience scores than those who used a textbook. Though we did not observe a significant difference in knowledge retention among the three learning tools, our further analysis of gender effects revealed that male participants generally reported more positive learning experience scores than female participants. Also, the overall experience of mixed-gender dyads was reported to be significantly lower than others in most of the learning experience and performance measures. While discussing the implications of our results in the context of anatomy and medical education, we highlight the potential of our learning tools with additional considerations related to gender and team dynamics in body painting anatomy learning interventions.
The study aims to ascertain the gender differences in the research productivity, research impact, collaboration pattern, funding, and self-citations of male and female authors belonging to the field of Library and Information Science (LIS). The top twenty-four (24) journals belonging to the LIS field ranked as per impact factors in Journal Citation Report (JCR) offered by Clarivate Analytics were analyzed. Only those journals that provided author biographies at the end of each article were selected. To ascertain the information regarding the gender of an author, biographical sketches provided at the end of each article were examined. Google Scholar was consulted to collect data on citations. For self-citations, references of each paper were thoroughly checked, and self-citation, if found, were tabulated for analysis. Collaboration pattern in terms of gender preference was studied under national and international categories. If collaborating authors belonged to the same country, the collaboration pattern was deemed national, and if the collaborating authors belonged to different countries, the pattern was deemed international. The acknowledgment section of each article was thoroughly checked to collect information on funding characteristics. Countries of origin belonging to authors were ascertained and were classified into three regions i.e. European, Non-European and Cross-Cultural. Then the relationship between the region and author productivity under various authorship patterns was studied. Later, Descriptive Statistics, ANOVA, T-test, and Chi-Square tests were applied to ascertain the significance of the results. Males and females on average are almost equally productive in the field of LIS. Males receive more citations for their manuscripts, creating more research impact than their female counterparts. It is further found that males and females prefer to collaborate with authors of the same gender. Moreover, males are more active and visible on the international collaboration side, while females are more active on the national side of collaboration. Regarding the research papers reporting on funding, it is found that the female gender has more likelihood of receiving funds for their research. Further, it is found that male authors are more involved in self-citations than females. Moreover, it is also revealed that female researchers are more research productive in Non-European countries while in European and Cross-Cultural regions men are still dominant in terms of research productivity. The study considers 24 prominent journals in the LIS. Since the journals are novel in the field, these provide a clearer view of the existence or absence of gender bias in the field. Only 24 prominent journals belonging to the LIS are considered, and the scope is limited to 5 years only. If more journals are considered and the study’s period is expanded, the results may vary from the present study’s findings. The study will let the stakeholders know whether there exists any gender disparity in LIS research. As the study focuses on the different areas and facets of research, it will enable professionals to identify the areas of gender bias and work toward resolving the issue. Further, the study will provide a bird’s eye view of the LIS field from the perspective of gender bias.
Background: Interdisciplinary collaboration and team dynamics play critical roles in patient safety, especially in the management of airway emergencies. However, these interactions can be influenced by implicit biases, which are often heightened in emergency scenarios in which Type 1 thinking predominates. This study aimed to understand the complex relationships of gender bias and hierarchy in a simulated airway emergency. Methods: Using the validated modified Advocacy-Inquiry Score (mAIS), we designed a simulation focused on the interaction between otolaryngology residents and anesthesiology attendings when deviation from the emergency airway management algorithm was introduced. A total of 15 otolaryngology residents were recruited. mAIS values were compared between female and male residents (self-identified gender) and by PGY-level. Results: The mean mAIS in female versus male participants was 4.11 (SD 0.44) versus 4.41 (SD 0.51) (p=0.12), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in mean scores based on either gender or PGY-level. Twelve participants demonstrated male association with career and female association with family on the Implicit Association Test while three were neutral. Results from our debriefing sessions indicated that females were challenged more and spoke up less than their male counterparts, even when they were clinically more experienced. Conclusions: This pilot study prompted conversation within our institution’s departments of otolaryngology and anesthesia about training and empowering residents to employ cognitive and interpersonal skills to challenge a superior when appropriate. Our simulation design fosters recognition and discussion of implicit biases related to gender and hierarchy and is adaptable to numerous other specialties and fields in healthcare.
Full-text available
This study examines the influence of design-based learning on 25 eighth-grade students’ design-thinking mindsets, that is, on the mental outlook that theyadopt habitually when they engage in design thinking. It also compares changesin design-thinking mindsets across individuals of different genders and differentlevels of experience in design. We collected data by using a self-reported Likert-scale questionnaire. We used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare thestudents’ design-thinking mindsets before and after design-based learning. Weutilized Mann-Whitney U tests to identify differences between male and femalestudents and between students with different levels of prior experience. Theresults indicate that the influence of design-based learning on design-thinkingmindsets depends on gender and prior experience Careful scaffolding isnecessary to enable all students to develop their design-thinking mindsets whenthey collaborate in design-based learning.
With the increasing focus on issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender1 across the spectrum of human activity, it is past time to consider how instruction in research integrity should incorporate these topics. Until very recently, issues of race/ethnicity and sex/gender have not typically appeared on any conventional lists of research integrity or responsible conduct of research (RCR) topics in the United States or, likely, other countries as well.2 However, I argue that not only can we incorporate these issues, we should do so to help accomplish some of the central goals of instruction in research integrity. I also offer some initial suggestions about where and how to incorporate them within familiar topics of instruction.
Full-text available
Attitudes among 178 professional men and women working for a clothing manufacturer and retailer depended on their work groups' sex composition. Findings were consistent with status considerations: women expressed a greater likelihood of leaving homogeneous groups than did men, even though women expressed greater commitment, positive affect, and perceptions of cooperation when they worked in all- female groups. These results suggest that similarity-attraction may be inadequate as the primary theoretical foundation for understanding how work group sex composition influences men and women.
Full-text available
Attitudes among 178 professional men and women working for a clothing manufac turer and retailer depended on their work groups' sex composition. Findings were consistent with status considerations: women expressed a greater likelihood of leaving homogeneous groups than did men, even though women expressed greater commit ment, positive affect, and perceptions of cooperation when they worked in all-female groups. These results suggest that similarity-attraction may be inadequate as the primary theoretical foundation for understanding how work group sex composition influences men and women. Though scholars have amassed a significant body of research on how demographic diversity influ ences organizations and their members and how sex diversity influences various work processes and outcomes, conclusions remain somewhat equivocal and, in some cases, contradictory. For example, it is unclear whether greater sex diversity promotes or constrains individual and group effec tiveness or influences women differently than men. One option for increasing understanding of how sex diversity influences working men and women is to follow the lead of past research and rely on the similarity-attraction paradigm (e.g., Byrne, 1971).
Full-text available
In this article we address issues of diversity within organizational groups by discussing and summarizing previous approaches and by introducing a new variable-faultlines-which depends on the alignment of individual member characteristics. By analyzing a group's faultlines, we focus attention on the underlying patterns of group member characteristics, which can be an important determinant of subgroup conflict, particularly when the group's task is related to one of its faultlines. We discuss the dynamics of faultlines from the early to later stages of a group's development and show how they may be strongest and most likely when diversity of individual member characteristics is moderate.
Full-text available
A multimethod field study of 92 workgroups explored the influence of three types of workgroup diversity (social category diversity, value diversity, and informational diversity) and two moderators (task type and task interdependence) on workgroup outcomes. Informational diversity positively influenced group performance, mediated by task conflict. Value and social category diversity, task complexity, and task interdependence all moderated this effect. Social category diversity positively influenced group member morale. Value diversity decreased satisfaction, intent to remain, and commitment to the group; relationship conflict mediated the effects of value diversity. We discuss the implications of these results for group leaders, managers, and organizations wishing to create and manage a diverse workforce successfully.
Integrating macro and micro theoretical perspectives, we conducted a meta-analysis examining the role of contextual factors in team diversity research. Using data from 8,757 teams in 39 studies conducted in organizational settings, we examined whether contextual factors at multiple levels, including industry, occupation, and team, influenced the performance outcomes of relations-oriented and task-oriented diversity. The direct effects were very small yet significant, and after we accounted for industry, occupation, and team-level contextual moderators, they doubled or tripled in size. Further, occupation- and industry-level moderators explained significant variance in effect sizes across studies.
SUMMARY—As the workplace has become increasingly diverse, there has been a tension between the promise and the reality of diversity in team process and performance. The optimistic view holds that diversity will lead to an increase in the variety of perspectives and approaches brought to a problem and to opportunities for knowledge sharing, and hence lead to greater creativity and quality of team performance. However, the preponderance of the evidence favors a more pessimistic view: that diversity creates social divisions, which in turn create negative performance outcomes for the group.
This paper develops theory about the conditions under which cultural diversity enhances or detracts from work group functioning. From qualitative research in three culturally diverse organizations, we identified three different perspectives on workforce diversity: the integration-and-learning perspective, the access-and-legitimacy perspective, and the discrimination-and-fairness perspective. The perspective on diversity a work group held influenced how people expressed and managed tensions related to diversity, whether those who had been traditionally underrepresented in the organization felt respected and valued by their colleagues, and how people interpreted the meaning of their racial identity at work. These, in turn, had implications for how well the work group and its members functioned. All three perspectives on diversity had been successful in motivating managers to diversify their staffs, but only the integration-and-learning perspective provided the rationale and guidance needed to achieve sustained benefits from diversity. By identifying the conditions that intervene between the demographic composition of a work group and its functioning, our research helps to explain mixed results on the relationship between cultural diversity and work group outcomes.
Large differences in scientific productivity between male and female researchers have not yet been explained satisfactorily This study finds that child care and lack of research collaboration are the two factors that cause significant gender differences in scientific publishing. Women with young children and women who do not collaborate in research with other scientists are clearly less productive than both their male and female colleagues.
Connectivity, the control parameter in a nonlinear dynamics model of team performance is mathematically linked to the ratio of positivity to negativity (P/N) in team interaction. By knowing the P/N ratio it is possible to run the nonlinear dynamics model that will portray what types of dynamics are possible for a team. These dynamics are of three types: point attractor, limit cycle, and complexor (complex order, or “chaotic” in the mathematical sense). Low performance teams end up in point attractor dynamics, medium perfomance teams in limit cycle dynamics, and high performance teams in complexor dynamics.