Solidarity in STEM: How Gender Composition Affects Women’s Experience in Work Teams
The relationships among the percentage of women in a team and women’s sense of team identification and collective efficacy as well as team performance was examined. We explored these relationships in a sample of student teams conducting a semester-long social science research project within the context of science and technology-focused university. Findings with 95 U.S. college students (43 women) show that women experience higher team identification and collective efficacy as the percent of women teammates increases. Additionally, women’s team identification and collective efficacy mediate the relationship between the percentage of women on the team and overall team performance. Interestingly, the number of men on the team did not influence men’s sense of team identification, collective efficacy, or team performance. This research has implications for team composition. Specifically, when navigating diversity in teams, managers and leaders should aim to build teams that are composed of multiple women versus an approach that divides women up among various teams. In doing so, managers can better secure conditions for the development of positive teamwork experiences and, ultimately, performance.
KeywordsGender equality Identification Collective efficacy theory STEM Team composition
The present material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation grant SBE-1063901, National Science Foundation grant SES-SBE 1219469, and the Army Research Office grant W911NF-14-10686, and in association with the Purdue Brock-Wilson Center for Women in Management.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
We would like to note that this is an original work, not published or submitted elsewhere, and there are no conflicts of interest (either financial or non-financial). This research was supported by the National Science Foundation grant SBE-1063901, National Science Foundation grant SES-SBE 1219469, and the Army Research Office grant W911NF-14-10686. Additionally, this work was presented at the 2016 Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research annual conference. This research involved human subjects, who consented to participation in this study.
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
- Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1964782.
- Burleigh, N. (2015). What Silicon Valley thinks of women. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/what-silicon-valley-thinks-women-302821.html.
- Catalyst. (2017, March 16). Women on corporate boards globally. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-corporate-boards-globally.
- Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167.Google Scholar
- Damore, J. (2017). Google’s ideological echo chamber: How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion. Retrieved on October 19, 2018 https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf.
- Dasgupta, N., Scircle, M. M., & Hunsinger, M. (2015). Female peers in small work groups enhance women’s motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(16), 4988–4993. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422822112.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42(7), 756–757.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685–710.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125–145.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S. M., Riger, S., & McHugh, M. C. (2012). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American Psychologist, 67(3), 211–230.Google Scholar
- Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuschatz, M., Uzzi, B., & Alonzo, J. (1994). The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science, 266(5182), 51–54.Google Scholar
- Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674.Google Scholar
- Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905–916.Google Scholar
- Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Why-So-Few-Women-in-Science-Technology-Engineering-and-Mathematics.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2019.
- Huang, C. Y., Huang, J. C., & Chang, Y. (2017). Team goal orientation composition, team efficacy, and team performance: The separate roles of team leader and members. Journal of Management & Organization. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.62.
- James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 212–229.Google Scholar
- Johns, G. (2018). Advances in the treatment of context in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104406.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, M. W., Alegria, S., Börjeson, L., Etzkowitz, H., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Joshi, A., ... Schiebinger, L. (2017). Opinion: Gender diversity leads to better science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8), 1740–1742.Google Scholar
- Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner (Ed.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 117–141). New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.Google Scholar
- Settles, I. (2014, October). Women in STEM: Challenges and determinants of success and wellbeing. Psychological Science Agenda. Retrieved on October 19, 2018, from http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2014/10/women-stem.aspx.
- Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, J., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
- Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Woolley, A., & Malone, T. (2011). What makes a team smarter? More women. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 32–33.Google Scholar
- Wright, D. B., Eaton, A. A., & Skagerberg, E. (2015). Occupational segregation and psychological gender differences: How empathizing and systemizing help explain the distribution of men and women into (some) occupations. Journal of Research in Personality, 54, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.004.Google Scholar
- Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 305–328). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
- Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036–1058. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20195.Google Scholar