Many studies show the benefits of mixed teams: among scientists, for example, they produce more impactful research. But does it matter how mixed they are? Yes, for the women in them, concludes fascinating American research. Undergraduates were randomly assigned to small male- or female-majority teams. The result? Male-majority teams don't pay much attention to women. They are rated as less influential and have a lower impact on group views—demonstrating a clear disadvantage for women in those setups.
Men in female-majority teams were four times more likely to be appointed as a spokesperson than women in male-majority teams (37% v 9%). The implications are critical: merely adding a token woman to a predominantly male board fails to address deeper systemic issues of influence and representation. This tokenism does not alleviate or help rectify the imbalances that exist, as evidenced by research outcomes.
In one experiment, assigning a female leader reduced the rate at which individual teammates discriminated against women by more than 50%. This indicates that leadership composition can significantly influence group dynamics, offering a pathway to promote equity in mixed-gender environments. The research suggests an actionable approach—diversifying leadership could lead to more inclusive behaviors, benefiting women in predominantly male settings.
Collection
[
|
...
]