Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acker, S., & Oatley, K. (1993). Gender issues in education for science and technology: Current situation and prospects for change. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de L’éducation, 18(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/1495386.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baugh, S. G., & Graen, G. B. (1997). Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group & Organization Management, 22(3), 366–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601197223004.
Bear, J. B., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961473.
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.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1997). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the career assessment of women. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(4), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279700500402.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0379.
Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819814001.
Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams a meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100303.
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.
Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320305.
Chen, G., Gully, S., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004.
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052.
Cohen, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 876–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295219001.
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.
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.
Dolan, K. (1997). Gender differences in support for women candidates: Is there a glass ceiling in American politics? Women & Politics, 17(2), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J014v17n02_02.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42(7), 756–757.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00326.x.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256.
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.
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.
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.
Earley, C. P., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556384.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2005). Managing diversity by creating team identity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(3), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.01.003.
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.
Fernández-Ballesteros, R., Díez Nicolás, J., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2002). Determinants and structural relation of personal efficacy to collective efficacy. Applied Psychology, 51(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00081.
Greer, L., & Bendersky, C. (2013). Power and status in conflict and negotiation research: Introduction to the special issue. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(4), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12021.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18(3), 326–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(81)90019-1.
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.
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.
Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234.
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.
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.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0122.
Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H., & Van Praag, M. (2013). The impact of gender diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from a field experiment. Management Science, 59(7), 1514–1528. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1674.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
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.
Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 212–229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105285144.
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.
Jones, B. F. (2009). The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder? The Review of Economic Studies, 76(1), 283–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00531.x.
Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2), 202–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214528331.
Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 141–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60144-6.
Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Erkut, S. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.02.005.
Krishnan, H. A., & Park, D. (2005). A few good women—on top management teams. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1712–1720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.09.003.
Lewin, A. Y., & Duchan, L. (1971). Women in academia. Science, 173(4000), 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.173.4000.892.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645–678. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080333.
Little, B. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1997). The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research, 28(4), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496497284003.
Lungeanu, A., Huang, Y., & Contractor, N. S. (2014). Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.006.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., Asencio, R., Seely, P. W., & DeChurch, L. A. (2015). How organizational identity affects team functioning: The identity instrumentality hypothesis. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315614370.
Metcalfe, B., & Linstead, A. (2003). Gendering teamwork: Re-writing the feminine. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00005.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.
Murase, T., Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2014). Mind the gap: The role of leadership in multiteam system collective cognition. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 972–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.003.
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.
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.
Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. (2014). Status in organization and management theory. Journal of Management, 40(1), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313498904.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
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.
Shih, J. (2006). Circumventing discrimination gender and ethnic strategies in Silicon Valley. Gender & Society, 20(2), 177–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205285474.
Smith-Crowe, K., Burke, M. J., Cohen, A., & Doveh, E. (2014). Statistical significance criteria for the rWG and average deviation interrater agreement indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034556.
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015659.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.
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.
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.
Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.17.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00020.
Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2012). A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.02.001.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woolley, A., & Malone, T. (2011). What makes a team smarter? More women. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 32–33.
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147.
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.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099.
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.
Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001215.
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.
Acknowledgements
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Niler, A.A., Asencio, R. & DeChurch, L.A. Solidarity in STEM: How Gender Composition Affects Women’s Experience in Work Teams. Sex Roles 82, 142–154 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01046-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01046-8