TEAMS' FEMALE REPRESENTATION AND PERCEIVED POTENCY AS INPUTS TO TEAM OUTCOMES IN A PREDOMINANTLY MALE FIELD SETTING

We developed a team-level temporal model and tested it with data from 92 newly formed teams in a naturalistic military setting where females were a distinct minority in all teams. Contrary to what is posited by theory on customary perceptions of females' capabilities and gender-role congruence, a higher female proportion within teams did not adversely influence teams' early perceived potency, later social cohesion, or observers' assessments of teamwork. Consistent with theory regarding gender and abilities, however, a higher female proportion within teams contributed to better team problem solving but led to slightly worse team results on physically demanding tasks. In addition, teams' early perceived potency contributed positively to early task proficiency and later social cohesion. Furthermore, teams' social cohesion contributed positively to externally observed teamwork while controlling for task proficiency. We discuss implications of these findings for theory and practice.

[1]  Paul Osterman,et al.  Work Reorganization in an Era of Restructuring: Trends in Diffusion and Effects on Employee Welfare , 2000 .

[2]  Mark W. Johnston,et al.  Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework , 1990 .

[3]  Craig L. Pearce,et al.  Confidence at the group level of analysis: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness , 2002 .

[4]  S. Webber,et al.  Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis , 2001 .

[5]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION , 1996 .

[6]  S. Jackson,et al.  Recent Research on Team and Organizational Diversity: SWOT Analysis and Implications , 2003 .

[7]  A. Eagly,et al.  Explaining Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Perspective , 1991 .

[8]  F. Pratto,et al.  The gender gap in occupational role attainment: a social dominance approach. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  D. Harrison,et al.  Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion , 1998 .

[10]  Dwight D. Frink,et al.  Gender Demography and Organization Performance , 2003 .

[11]  M. Heilman,et al.  Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[12]  Paul R. Yost,et al.  Potency in groups: articulating a construct. , 1993, The British journal of social psychology.

[13]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE WORK GROUPS , 1993 .

[14]  Benson Rosen,et al.  Powering up teams , 2000 .

[15]  B. Meeker,et al.  Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. , 1977, American sociological review.

[16]  Ian R. Gellatly,et al.  Conscientiousness and Task Performance: Test of Cognitive Process Model , 1996 .

[17]  Gilad Chen,et al.  Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. , 2000 .

[18]  S. G. Cohen,et al.  What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite , 1997 .

[19]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  TEAMS EMBEDDED IN ORGANIZATIONS : SOME IMPLICATIONS , 1999 .

[20]  Gerard H. Seijts,et al.  Leader and Staff Role-Efficacy as Antecedents of Collective-Efficacy and Team Performance , 2003 .

[21]  Gudela Grote,et al.  An international survey of the use and effectiveness of modern manufacturing practices , 2002 .

[22]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes , 2001 .

[23]  Paul D. Bliese,et al.  Gender Composition and Group Cohesion in U.S. Army Units: A Comparision across Five Studies , 1999 .

[24]  Anson Seers,et al.  Team-member exchange quality: a new construct for role-making research , 1989 .

[25]  B. Bass,et al.  Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  Gilad Chen,et al.  General self-efficacy and self-esteem: toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations , 2004 .

[27]  A. Eagly,et al.  Gender effects on social influence and emergent leadership. , 1999 .

[28]  R. Kanter.  Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[29]  W. Wood,et al.  Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. , 1987, Psychological bulletin.

[30]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[31]  C. Gibson.  Do they do what they Believe they can? Group Efficacy and Group Effectiveness Across Tasks and Cultures , 1999 .

[32]  Steffanie L. Wilk,et al.  Within-group norming and other forms of score adjustment in preemployment testing. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[33]  Katherine W. Phillips,et al.  When What You Know Is Not Enough: Expertise and Gender Dynamics in Task Groups , 2004, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[34]  M. L. Cooper,et al.  Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. , 1992, The Journal of applied psychology.

[35]  A. Konrad.  Special Issue Introduction: Defining The Domain Of Workplace Diversity Scholarship , 2003 .

[36]  G. Stewart,et al.  Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[37]  Lisa M. Finkelstein,et al.  Job and industry fit: The effects of age and gender matches on career progress outcomes. , 2004 .

[38]  Carol T. Kulik,et al.  Explaining Gender-Based Selection Decisions: A Synthesis Of contextual and Cognitive Approaches , 1994 .

[39]  D. Lykken.  Statistical significance in psychological research. , 1968, Psychological bulletin.

[40]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  From Micro to Meso: Critical Steps in Conceptualizing and Conducting Multilevel Research , 2000 .

[41]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[42]  J. Mathieu,et al.  The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[43]  Johann Peter Murmann,et al.  Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: Three Times Two Case Studies of Individual Firms , 2003 .

[44]  N. Christiansen,et al.  IMPLICATIONS OF TRAIT‐ACTIVATION THEORY FOR EVALUATING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER RATINGS , 2002 .

[45]  Elizabeth George,et al.  Identifying the Ingroup: A Closer Look at the Influence of Demographic Dissimilarity on Employee Social Identity , 2004 .

[46]  B. Mullen,et al.  The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. , 1994 .

[47]  D. Buss,et al.  Evolutionary foundations of personality. , 1997 .

[48]  Kara A. Incalcaterra,et al.  A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[49]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Gender composition, situational strength, and team decision-making accuracy: A criterion decomposition approach , 2002 .

[50]  R. Arvey,et al.  Development of physical ability tests for police officers: a construct validation approach. , 1992, The Journal of applied psychology.

[51]  M. Audrey Korsgaard,et al.  The Antecedents and Consequences of Group Potency: A Longitudinal Investigation of Newly Formed Work Groups , 2002 .

[52]  D. Eden.  Replication, Meta-Analysis, Scientific Progress, and AMJ's Publication Policy , 2002 .

[53]  Frances J. Milliken,et al.  Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups , 1996 .

[54]  D. Halpern,et al.  Sex differences in intelligence. Implications for education. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[55]  L. Karakowsky,et al.  The effects of proportional representation and gender orientation of the task on emergent leadership behavior in mixed-gender work groups. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[56]  Benson Rosen,et al.  ASSESSING THE INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF TEAM CONSENSUS RATINGS OVER AGGREGATION OF INDIVIDUAL‐LEVEL DATA IN PREDICTING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS , 2001 .

[57]  J. Mathieu,et al.  Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[58]  Lisa A. Boyce,et al.  The Relationship Between Gender Role Stereotypes and Requisite Military Leadership Characteristics , 2003 .

[59]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[60]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Asymmetric Reactions to Work Group Sex Diversity Among Men and Women , 2004 .

[61]  R. Murray,et al.  An Empirical Study of Empowerment in the Workplace , 1996 .

[62]  S. Mulaik,et al.  EVALUATION OF GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS , 1989 .

[63]  Amy E. Randel,et al.  Understanding Group Efficacy , 2000 .

[64]  R. Peterson,et al.  Task Conflict snd Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams:The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. , 1998 .

[65]  M. Biernat,et al.  Gender- and race-based standards of competence: lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups , 1997 .

[66]  Martha Foschi,et al.  Double Standards in the Evaluation of Men and Women , 1996 .

[67]  Robert L. Linn,et al.  Range restriction problems in the use of self-selected groups for test validation. , 1968 .

[68]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. , 1998 .

[69]  John J. Sosik,et al.  Group Potency and Collective Efficacy , 2003 .

[70]  W. Wood,et al.  TITLE Sex Differences in Interaction Style as a Product of Perceived Sex Differences in Competence , 2007 .