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.
JuttaAllmendinger, HackmanRichard. 1995. The more, the better? A four-nation study of the inclusion of women in symphony orchestras. Social Forces74(2): 423–60.
2.
GayleBaughS, GraenGeorgeB. 1997. Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group & Organization Management22: 366–83.
3.
BerdahlJenniferH, AndersonCameron. 2005. Men, women and leadership centralization in groups over time.Group Dynamics9: 45–57.
4.
BlackwellLaurenV, SnyderLoriA, MavriplisCatherine. 2009. Diverse faculty in STEM fields: Attitudes, performance, and fair treatment.Journal of Diversity in Higher Education2(4): 195–205.
5.
BlickenstaffJacobC. 2005. Women in science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?Gender and Education17: 369–86.
6.
BowersClintA, PharmerJamesA, EduardoSalas. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research31(3): 305–27.
7.
CarliLindaL.: 2001. Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues57(4): 725–41.
8.
CarliLindaL. 2010. Gender and group behavior. InHandbook of gender research in psychology, ed. , ChrislerJoan C, McCrearyDonald R. New York: Springer.
9.
ChatmanJennifer A, O'ReillyCharles A. 2004. Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women. Academy of Management Journal47: 193–208.
10.
CorleyElizabeth A. 2005. How do career strategies, gender, and work environment affect faculty productivity levels in university-based science centers?Review of Policy Research22(5): 537–655.
11.
CraigJane M, SherifCarolyn W. 1986. The effectiveness of men and women in problem-solving groups as a function of group gender composition. Sex Roles14: 453–66.
12.
CroninCatherine, AngelaRoger. 1999. Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering, and technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching36(6): 639–61.
13.
DovidioJohn F, BrownClifford E, HeltmanKaren, EllysonSteve L, KeatingCaroline F. 1988. Power displays between men and women in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology55: 580–7.
14.
EaglyAlice H, JohnsonBlair T. 1990. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin108: 233–56.
15.
ElyRobin J, ThomasDavid A. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly46(2): 229–73.
16.
FenwickGraham D, NealDerrick J. 2001. Effect of gender composition on group performance.Gender, Work and Organization8(2): 205–25.
17.
FoxMary F. 1991. Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity. In The outer circle, ed. , ZuckermanH, ColeJ, BruerJ, 188–204. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
18.
JacksonSusan E, AparnaJoshi, ErhardtNiclas L. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management29: 801–30.
19.
JehnKaren A, NorthcraftGregory B, NealeMargaret A, 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly44(4): 0741–63.
20.
AparnaJoshi, 2010. Gender-based effects in ‘team science’: Integrating alter, ego, and team level perspectives.Working paper. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
21.
AparnaJoshi, RohHyuntak: 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal52(3): 599–627.
22.
KanterRosabeth M. 1977. Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women.The American Journal of Sociology82(5): 965–90.
23.
ThomasKochan, BezrukovaKaterina, ElyRobin, JacksonSusan, JoshiAparna, JehnKaren, LeonardJonathan, LevineDavid, ThomasDavid, 2003. The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network.Human Resource Management42(1): 3–21.
24.
SveinKyvik, TeigenMari, 1996. Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity.Science, Technology, & Human Values21(1): 54–71.
25.
LauDora C, MurnighanKeith J, 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups.Academy of Management Review23: 325–40.
26.
CynthiaLee, FarhJiing-Lih, 2004. Joint effects of group efficacy and gender diversity on group cohesion and performance.Applied Psychology: An International Review53(1): 136–54.
27.
MarcialLosada, HeaphyEmily. 2004. The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams.American Behavioral Scientist47(6): 740–65.
28.
MannixElizabeth, NealeMargaretA, 2005. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest6(2): 31–55.
29.
LarissaMyaskovsky, UnikelEmily, DewMaryA, 2005. Effects of gender diversity on performance and interpersonal behavior in small work groups.Sex Roles52(9–10): 645–57.
30.
National Science Foundation. 2009. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF 09-305. Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd. (21/03/2011)
31.
PearsallMatthew J, EllisAlexander PJ, EvansJoel M, 2008. Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key?Journal of Applied Psychology93(1): 225–34.
32.
PelledLisa H. 1996. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science7(6): 615–31.
33.
PelledLisa H, EisenhardtKathleen, XinKatherine, 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of workgroup diversity, conflict, and performance.Administrative Science Quarterly44: 1–28.
34.
MarianneSchmid-Mast. 2001. Gender differences and similarities in dominance hierarchies in same-gender groups based on speaking time. Sex Roles44: 537–56.
35.
GerhardSonnert, FoxMary F, AdkinsKristen. 2007. Undergraduate women in science and engineering: Effects of faculty, fields, and institutions over time.Social Science Quarterly88: 1333–56.
36.
StewartGreg L. 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management32(1): 29–54.
37.
HenriTajfel. 1981. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
TapsJudith, MartinPatricia Y. 1990. Gender composition, attributional accounts, and women's influence and likability in task groups. Small Group Research21: 471–91.
39.
WebberSheila S, DonahueLisa M. 2001. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management27: 141–62.
40.
WeickKael E, RobertsKarlene H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly38(3): 357–81.
41.
WoolleyAnita W, ChabrisChristopher F, PentlandAlexander, HashmiNada, ThomasWMalone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups.Science330:686–8.
42.
StefanWuchty, JonesBenjaminF, UzziBrian. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge.Science316(5827): 1036–9.
