THE INFLUENCE OF WOMEN’S PROPORTION IN WORK
TEAMS ON INFORMATION SHARING: MEDIATING
EFFECT OF MEN’S DISTINCTIVENESS THREAT AND
MODERATING EFFECT OF MALE-STEREOTYPED TASKS
Master thesis, Msc HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
October 23, 2008 QIANMIN LUO Student number: 1665898 Saffierstraat 210 9743 LN Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6 4318 5778 Email: sammy121511@gmail.com Supervisor G. S. Van der Vegt
Second supervisor O. Jassen
ABSTRATCT
Since women’s participation in workplace is growing, gender composition in
organization and work teams has attracted widespread attention. This thesis tried to focus on one specific aspect of gender composition, namely women’s proportion in teams. Based on theoretical perspectives, I attempted to explore the relations between women’s increasing proportion in teams, men’s distinctiveness threat, men’s information sharing with women, and male-stereotyped tasks. I proposed that the increase of women’s proportion in teams would result in reduction of men’s information sharing with women, and this relation was mediated by men’s distinctiveness threat. Moreover,
male-stereotyped tasks moderated the relation between women’s proportion and men’s
distinctiveness threat. These results indicated that women’s increasing proportion did not improve women’s situations in workplace, but to some degree made them worse. Besides, the mediating effect of distinctiveness threat offered inspiring implications for this thesis and further researches. Limitations and further researches directions were discussed at the end of the thesis.
INTRODUCTION
Women’s increasing participation in workplace has dramatic influence on teams and organizations (Reskin, McBrier, & Kmec, 1999). From the existing literature and research, the effects of women’s growing numbers in teams have received widespread attention (Izraeli, 1983; Kanter, 1977; Konrad, Winter, & Gutek, 1992; Spangler, Gordon, & Pipkin, 1978). Due to women’s social minority status, most of these studies have taken the perspective of women. However, women’s increasing representation may not only influence the positions and behavior of women, but also those of men (Choi & Hon, 2002). Thus, it is important to address men’s view as well, because men’s impressions, behaviors, and feelings may affect their reactions toward the increasing proportion of women in workplace (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992).
In work teams, information sharing between men and women seems to vary along with women’s different proportional representation. One example from Kanter (1977) implies that men informationally isolated female colleagues when they were in a numerical minority. Men managers avoided giving women information about their performance as trainees; women were excluded from men’s conservation. Besides, the external-conflict/internal-cohesion hypothesis suggests that when women constitute a large proportion of the total work team, men will band together more cohesively, interact more frequently with other men, and will show greater support for men’s advancement in the organization (South, Bonjean, Markham, & Corder, 1983). It seems that, the more women appear in teams, the less information men share with women colleagues. Informational isolation and contact avoidance will reduce the information sharing between men and women, thus may impede the quality of decision-making and team performance.
workplace, this thesis will explore the theoretical perspectives on men’s distinctiveness threat concerning the proportional representation of women in teams.
Moreover, women’s increasing proportion in teams may have more distinct influence on men’s distinctiveness threat under certain circumstances (e.g., stereotyped tasks compared to non-stereotyped tasks). Therefore, I utilize male-stereotyped tasks as the moderating factor in the relation between women’s proportion in teams and men’s distinctiveness threat. The privilege and high status attached to male-stereotyped tasks have meaningful indications for men, so their distinctiveness may vary in male-stereotyped tasks compared to non-male-stereotyped tasks.
To clarify the relations stated above, a conceptual model is presented below (See Figure 1):
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
This thesis is going to answer the following question: How does women’s proportional representation influence men’s information sharing with women in teams? In order to answer this research question, several sub-questions are raised:
• Does women’s growing proportional representation increase men’s distinctiveness threat?
• Does the increase of men’s distinctiveness threat reduce information that men share with women in teams?
• Does men’s distinctiveness threat become more distinct along with women’s increasing representation in male-stereotyped tasks, compared to non-male-stereotyped tasks?
To address all these questions, this thesis will start with a theoretical background, introducing gender proportions in teams, distinctiveness threat, information sharing and male-stereotyped tasks. After this, propositions will be formulated, which focus on relations between women’s increasing proportional representation in teams, men’s distinctiveness threat, men’s information sharing with women and the moderating effect of male-stereotyped tasks. Last but not least, the discussion will conclude this thesis.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Gender proportions in teams
Proportion is defined as “the relative numbers of socially and culturally different people in a group”, and it is seen as critical in shaping interaction dynamics in teams (Kanter, 1977). As one of the key issues of gender composition study, proportion offers inspiring indications. For instance, Kanter (1977) emphasized that proportion as a significant aspect of life, particularly important for understanding interactions in groups composed of people of different cultural categories or status. Gender proportions in teams to a large extent place great influence on interaction and communication between men and women.
into two main categories, namely “generic” composition theories and “institutional” composition theories. “Generic” composition theories argue that the vital factor affecting individuals in work group is whether they are in the majority or in the minority and that the specific demographic characteristics (i.e., nationality, gender, race, etc.) of the majority and the minority do not have any relation with the prediction of individual behavior and outcomes. “Institutional” composition theories assume, on the other hand, that members of different demographic groups will respond differently to being in the minority or in the majority, depending on the social significance of particular
demographic characteristics in specific social and organizational contexts. “Institutional” composition theories emphasize the importance of other demographic characteristics (e.g., gender status) of majority and minority groups, which is also a main concern of this thesis. Hence, both men and women have different attitudes and reactions according to percentage of men and women in a team.
Distinctiveness threat
Distinctiveness threat is defined as “the threat associated with not having a distinct social identity, or one that is insufficiently distinctive from other comparison groups” (Branscombe et al., 1999: 41). Distinctiveness threat is conceptualized based on two theories: Self-categorization theory and social identity theory (Brown, 1984; Jetten, Spear, & Manstead, 1998; Jetten, Spear, & Manstead, 1999; Tsui et al., 1992). Self-categorization theory suggests that people tend to categorize themselves into
psychological groups, so as to maximize differences between categories and minimize differences within categories (Turner, 1987). That is, Turner (1987) further explains that, a certain degree of distinctiveness may be necessary for groups to qualify as independent groups. According to social identity theory, people are motivated to positively
Furthermore, researches have indicated that only similarity on important, comparable dimensions implies less distinctiveness (Brown and Abrams, 1986; Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1978). Previous studies have inspected attitudes (Jetten, Spear, & Manstead, 1997), status (Brown & Abrams, 1986; Mummendey & Scheriber, 1984; Turner, 1987), group roles (Brown & Wade, 1987), and group norms (Jetten, Spear, & Manstead, 1996). Similarity on these dimensions will stimulate distinctiveness threat, due to their importance and comparability in social comparison. What is more, cooperation and competition situations also offer inspiring implications. In cooperative situations, similarity is very likely to associate with attraction (Brown, 1984). However, under competition, similarity implies less distinctiveness, and hence differentiation and disliking will be activated (Brown & Abrams, 1986). To summarize, in competitive situations, inter-group similarity on important and comparable dimensions means less in-group distinctiveness.
Group distinctiveness is not just a source of social identity, but also something important that will be protected when threatened (Branscombe, et al., 1999). Confronted with distinctiveness threat, people are inclined to show out-group derogation/
discrimination, and in-group bias/ favoritism (Brown & Abrams, 1986; Brown & Wade, 1987; Jetten et al., 1996; Jetten et al., 1997). A more general theoretical point is that people tend to differentiate their groups in order to achieve or restore distinctiveness (Branscombe, et al., 1999).
Information sharing
Furthermore, information sharing is a strategic process (Wittenbaum,
Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004). Information sharing is a motivated process in the sense that members intentionally select what information to mention and how to mention it to particular members in order to satisfy goals. Primarily, people may have a preference for some types of information over others. That is, members have various goals (for instance, maintaining good relations with the supervisor and co-workers, attaining status in the group, getting preferred decision alternatives, etc.), so they deliberately select or withhold information that will help them to attain their goals. To achieve their goals, members may make purposeful choices on with whom they want to share the information. Besides, people may be very selective about how they mention information. They are very likely to interpret it and frame it in goal-congruent ways.
Information sharing is a two-way process. It is possible that men initiate sharing information with women, and the same is applicable for women. In this thesis, I am going to focus on how men take the first step to share information with women, which is
considered as one of the reactions of distinctiveness threat.
Male-stereotyped tasks
Male-stereotyped tasks underlie the expectations of task performers’ competence. According to status characteristics theory (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980),
external status characteristics, such as gender, race and age can be used by team members to form initial expectations about the relative competencies of individuals working on a team task (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Karakowsky, McBey, & Chuang, 2004). For example, people expect others to perform better at tasks that are appropriate or compatible with their gender (Karakwosky & McBey, 2001). When the gender-typed of the task was congruent with the gender of the performer, perceptions of competence and expectations of success were higher than when the task gender-type was incongruent (Lenney, 1977; Vancouver & Ilgen, 1989). That is to say, the perceived task competence is largely related to the congruence or incongruence in gender-orientation of the task.
competence and capability (Karakwosky & McBey, 2001; Karakwosky, McBey, & Miller, 2004). This unfavorable expectation implies implicitly that women are
confronted with constraints in performing male-stereotyped tasks, because expectation from self and others can influence performance dramatically (Cooper, 1979a;
Karakwosky & McBey, 2001). What is more, Taynor and Deaux (1973) have suggested that being a woman in masculine situation would be viewed as a nonvoluntary constraint. Nevertheless, if women achieve success with constraints, they will be perceived as more deserving of reward than men for an equivalent performance (Taynor & Deaux, 1973). To conclude, male-stereotyped tasks have twofold implications for women. On the one hand, they will be perceived as less competent by themselves and men. On the other hand, they will be considered as more competent than men if they achieve success in these tasks.
For men, male-stereotyped tasks do not only indicate gender-congruent task competence, but also high privilege and status. Due to men’s high status in society, tasks that are stamped as “male” are given higher status and privilege than non-male tasks. The “maleness” attached to male-stereotyped tasks in turn denotes higher symbolic status and prestige (Berdahl, 1996) to people performing such tasks. Additionally, people
performing male-stereotyped tasks have higher salaries than those who perform female-stereotyped tasks (Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1987).
In short, male-stereotyped tasks have both positive and negative meanings for women, while these tasks are a sign of advantage and privilege for men.
To conclude this section, definitions and relevant studies about gender
proportions in teams, distinctiveness threat, information sharing and male-stereotyped tasks were given. In the next section, relations between these factors will be discussed and proportions will be illustrated.
PROPOSITIONS
The effects of women’s proportion on men’s distinctiveness threat
leadership than women, regardless of the gender composition of the team (Cooper, 1979b; Eagly & Carli, 1981; Williams, 1992). Likewise, men are inclined to be more
participative and influential in a mixed-gender setting, given the nature of the gender roles (Eagly, 1987).
On the other hand, a number of researches agree that men are influenced by women’s proportion in teams. Randel (2002) reports that numerical distinctiveness leads to relationship conflict for men. Numerical distinctiveness refers to the situations that there are many men (thus few women) and few men (thus many women) in teams. The situations where there are few women or many women stimulate men’s awareness of gender difference, and such awareness results in men’s negative experience with women. Besides, Wharton and Baron (1987) conclude that men in gender-balanced settings reported significant low related satisfaction and self-esteem, as well as more job-related depression than men in male-dominated work settings.
Men are not only influenced by women’s proportion in teams, but they also have negative attitudes and reactions toward female peers. In the sales force of Kanter’s field study (1977), men tried to isolate token women (women’s representation ratio in teams is around 15 percent), to exaggerate the difference between themselves and women
colleagues, and to place performance pressure on women consciously or unconsciously. Izraeli (1983) conducted an empirical study in union workers committees, which was consistent with Kanter’s contention. Moreover, Yoder (1991) claims that the salesmen might not feel the negative effects of saleswomen’s small number, but their increasing number in teams. Another study examined the frequency and quality of male-female interaction in six offices of a large bureaucracy (South, Bonjean, Markham, & Corder, 1982). It found that the higher the proportion of women in the office, the less interaction between men and women, and the less support from men for women promotion. It appears that negative consequences continue to grow as the proportion of women increase in teams.
competition with the majority. Put it another way, when social minorities (e.g., women) are represented in large numbers, they pose competitive threat to the social majorities (e.g., men) (Randel, 2002). Women’s increasing proportion constitutes numerical power, which is perceived as a threat to men. Besides, the relatively large number in teams will be assumed to be highly competent and will compete for the status (Berdhal, 1996). That is, women’s increasing proportions comprise a threat for men.
This kind of threat can be interpreted as distinctiveness threat. Considered as a similar out-group in teams, women’s increasing participation may symbolize the lessening strength of men’s distinctiveness. Thus, men are not sufficiently distinctive from women. In brief, men’s distinctiveness threat increase along with women’s increasing proportional representation in teams.
Similarity from social comparison leads to distinctiveness threat (Brown, 1984). However, under certain situations, dissimilarity may also result in distinctiveness threat. Festinger (1954) concludes that different status groups were basically non-comparable, which suggested that distinctiveness threat should not be found in the relations between different status groups. Nonetheless, Turner (1978) finds that only when status
differences are perceived as stable, inter-group differentiation decreases. Yet, when the status differences are unstable, inter-group differentiation climbs. Men’s high gender status and women’s relatively low gender status are supposed to be non-comparable, but when women’s proportions in teams increase, the situation may change. Women’s numerical power is likely to change the status differences between men and women, which causes the status differences unstable. In this circumstance, gender status
dissimilarity between men and women leads to greater inter-group differentiation, which is considered to be one of the reactions of distinctiveness threat. Put it another way, women’s growing proportion in teams leads to more significant men’s distinctiveness threat.
Here, the first proposition is presented:
The effects of men’s distinctiveness threat and men’s information sharing with women in teams
Numerous researches (Branscombe, et al., 1999; Brown, 1984; Jetten et al., 1997; Turner, 1978) have come to a similar conclusion that distinctiveness threat will motivate in-group members to differentiate in-group from similar out-group on relevant
dimensions of social comparison to restore group distinctiveness. That is, positive differentiation from out-group is a major means to maintain in-group distinctiveness.
Differentiation is defined as “a variety of phenomena associated with the
establishment of a positively valued distinctiveness, i.e. it covers in-group favoritism and discriminations between one’s own group and comparison groups” (Van Knippenberg, 1978: 173). Positive differentiation is a process of differentiating the in-group positively from the out-group (Jetten et al., 1998). For instance, physical segregation, behavior differentiation, social separation, and even hierarchy are functional alternatives for satisfying the need for differentiation in domination systems (Reskin, 1988). Brown and Abrams (1986) also point out that if the positive distinctiveness is threatened by too great a similarity on important dimensions of comparison, the reactions may be to increase the level of in-group bias and differentiation on another dimension. When men’s
distinctiveness is threatened by women, they may adopt one or the combination of these alternatives, in order to restore their distinctiveness on another dimension.
and influential. Put it another way, women are perceived as less capable and comparable to men. Therefore, men’s distinctiveness threat may decrease, by sharing less information with women.
Based on the above discussions, the second proposition is drawn:
Proposition 2: There is a negative relation between men’s distinctiveness threat and men’s information sharing with women in teams.
The mediating effect of men’s distinctiveness threat
The above arguments clearly stated that, women’s increasing proportional representation in teams will trigger men’s distinctiveness threat. The higher men’s distinctiveness threat is, the less information men will share with women in teams. Therefore, men’s distinctiveness threat mediates the relation between women’s proportion and men’s information sharing with women in teams. Hence, the third proposition is formulated:
Proposition 3: Men’s distinctiveness threat mediates the relation between women’s proportion in teams and men’s information sharing with women. Based on this proposition, the forth proportion is illustrated:
Proposition 4: There is a negative relation between women’s proportion in teams and men’s information sharing with women.
The moderating effect of male-stereotyped tasks
According to Proposition 1, the relation between women’s proportion in teams and men’s distinctiveness threat has been built. Looking through existing studies, this relation seems to become more distinct in certain situations. For example, men’s
perceptions toward the quality of team performance tend to diverge according to various gender compositions and gender types of tasks, despite the actual performance level achieved (Karakowsky et al., 2004). Men in male-dominant teams (thus few women) performing male-stereotyped tasks perceived their team’s performance to be higher than men in gender-balanced teams. In gender-balanced teams, men performing
performance in male-stereotyped tasks than in female-stereotyped tasks. In addition, Ott (1989) carried out a study on the effects of male-female ratios at work in policing, which was traditionally assigned to men and denied to women. It was found that policemen developed resistance toward policewomen once the number of female colleagues reached certain percentage in teams. It seems that the gender cues of tasks have significant
indications for men.
Some researches provide some explanation for these phenomenons. Van Knippenberg (1984) finds that the higher status groups (e.g., men) acknowledged the superiority of the lower status groups (e.g., women) in some dimensions which would not threaten their position of privilege, while retaining their superiority in restricted area, which happens to have superior value connotations in the wider social context. To be more specific, men will tolerate women in predominantly male work settings if they work in “women’s” jobs and accept women doing “men’s” jobs in traditionally female settings, but resist women doing traditionally male jobs in male work settings (Reskin, 1988). Men are less inclined to accept women into roles that are traditionally perceived as male-oriented (Spence & Hahn, 1997; Twenge, 1997). Men accept women in certain situations (e.g., non-male-stereotyped tasks), whilst refuse women participating in some other situations (e.g., male-stereotyped tasks).
The privilege and high status attached to male-stereotyped tasks may be the reason why men are less likely to accept women in male-stereotyped tasks. Privilege and status make men stand out from women, maintaining relatively high distinctiveness, thus they retain a positive social identity (Berdahl, 1996; Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1987). In addition, according to Blumber’s (1958) theory of group positions, members of socially dominant groups develop a sense of entitlement to resources, status and privilege. They fear that the less dominant groups would like access to these benefits. When women participate in male-stereotyped tasks, they would be regarded to compete for such entitlement with men. Losing control of these entitlements will make men feel less distinctive. Consequently, men’s distinctiveness threat occurs.
Women in male-stereotyped tasks are assumed to be capable and competent enough, because usually they have to work harder to gain the same ratings to men’s (Connerley, Mecham, & Strauss, 2008; Taynor & Deaux, 1973). Women’s competence to perform male-stereotyped tasks, to a large degree, is similar to male’s traditional high task-orientation image (Berdhal, 1996). Therefore, in male-stereotyped tasks, women’s
competence similarity is very likely to activate social comparison on the task competence dimensions, which is highly important to men. This will threaten men’s distinctiveness, because the similarity on important dimensions simulates in-group’s distinctiveness threat (Mummendey & Schreiber, 1984; Brown & Abram, 1986; Brown & Wade, 1987). However, in non-male-stereotyped tasks, such competence similarity may not be as distinct as in male-stereotyped tasks. Hence, there is little likelihood that men’s distinctiveness would be threatened.
Under competition, perceived inter-group similarity highlights the social
comparison on important dimensions, which threaten in-group’s distinctiveness. In male-stereotyped tasks, perceived competition for privilege and status between men and women become severe; at the same time, competence similarity become more noticeable. As women’s surges in proportion, such competition and similarity are recognized as more powerful. This also explains Ott’s (1989) study result that resistance was more frequently seen in groups with relatively high ratio of women than in those with few women.
Therefore, men’s distinctiveness threat will increase dramatically along with women’s growing proportion in male-stereotyped tasks, but not in non-male-stereotyped tasks.
Proposition 5: Male-stereotyped tasks moderate the relation between women’s proportion in teams and men’s distinctiveness threat. In male-stereotyped tasks, the increase of women’s proportion in teams leads to the increase of men’s distinctiveness threat.
DISCUSSION Findings
was a negative relation between women’s proportion in teams and men’s information sharing with women. This relation was mediated by men’s distinctiveness threat. The higher proportion of women in teams was, the more men’s distinctiveness was threatened. When men were confronted with distinctiveness threat, they tended to exhibit in-group bias and positive differentiation from women. Information sharing was regarded as one of means that men would adopt to differentiate themselves from women. In addition, the impact of women’s increasing proportion in teams was more obvious in male-stereotyped tasks, compared to non-male-stereotyped tasks. Hence, it was examined that men’s distinctiveness threat would be higher in male-stereotyped tasks than in non-male-stereotyped tasks.
Contributions
It is clear that women are at a disadvantaged position when they are numerical minority in teams (Johnson & Schulman, 1989; Judith, 2000; Jurik, 1985). Thus scholars suggest that the increasing number of women may improve the situations (Kanter, 1977; Martin, 1985). However, it does not seem that simple. By inspecting the growing
proportion of women in teams, this thesis suggested the reversed results. The larger women’s proportional representation in teams is, the less information men share with women. These results confirmed Zimmer’s (1988) finding that, women were
discriminated not because of their numerical rarity, but their social inferiority. That is, low social status.
Another contribution of this thesis is the introduction of distinctiveness threat as the mechanism to explain inter-group relations (Jetten & Spear, 2003; Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004). Distinctiveness threat was applied to inter-gender relations in this thesis, but it can be generalized to other types of high and low status inter-group relations (for example, whites and nonwhites). It is claimed that the need to maintain a positive social identity may be stronger for high status groups (e.g., whites and men) than with lower power and status (e.g., nonwhites and women) (Tsui et al., 1992). That is to say,
aversive racism, where majority may hold a negative view of minority (Messick & Meckie, 1989).
What is more, since distinctiveness threat is resulted from similarity on important and relevant dimensions, multidimensional comparison may help reduce distinctiveness threat (Van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 1990). Groups are likely to gain respective distinctiveness on different dimensions, which diminish the possibility of direct comparisons on relevant dimensions. Hence, distinctiveness threat will be reduced. Consequently, in-group bias, out-group derogation and differentiation will be lessened, and inter-group relations will be improved.
The moderating effect of male-stereotyped tasks emphasizes the importance of context or situational factors. Hackman (1999) stresses the importance of context. One of his arguments points out that context plays an important role in shaping inter-group interactions and orienting members’ motives and emotions. Ridgeway (1988: 196) introduced “situational activation assumption”, which indicates that situational factors could activate certain characteristics. These characteristics sometimes may even play a determinant role in examining inter-group relations. Contextual or situational factors should be taken into serious consideration when exploring inter-group relations.
Limitations and future research directions
The conceptual model and relevant relations were discussed on the basis of theoretical backgrounds. The next step is to test the model and relations empirically. The model is tested in minimal groups and natural groups, so the results can be compared in experimental and real situations. This will enhance the reliability of the model.
Another main concern will be the operationalization of the factors illustrated in the conceptual model. Women’s proportions in teams can be operationalized as skewed group One (15% women), titled group One (35% women), balanced group (50% women), titled group Two (65% women) and skewed group Two (85 % women) (Kanter, 1977). Another way to operationalize women’s proportions in teams can be predominantly men, 50% women and predominantly women (Burke & McKeen, 1996). Distinctiveness threat is operationalized as men and women having non-overlapping boundaries (low
inter-group similarities (Jetten et al., 1997). Besides, the manipulation of distinctiveness may be necessary, according to status and task competence (Jetten et al., 2004). Men’s information sharing with women is operationalized in terms of the frequency, and men’s tendency to share information with men or women. For gender-stereotyped tasks, I will use group discussion tasks that require relative expertise of males (male-stereotyped tasks) and females (female-stereotyped tasks, one of non-male-stereotyped tasks) (Karakowsky & Siegel, 1999). The male-stereotyped task is based on a negotiation scenario and involves a business-related negotiation. Female-stereotyped tasks are based on a negotiation scenario, concerning job responsibilities with the implications of sexual harassment.
A second limitation is that the focus on men’s information sharing neglected women’s side. Women’s communication style may enhance the inter-gender
communication and information sharing in teams. Women tend to communicate in a more negotiative or empowering fashion. Thus, women’s presence increases sharing information among team members (Tannen, 1992). Therefore, examining women’s information sharing along with their proportional representation in teams may be inspiring for further researches.
A third inadequacy of this thesis is that the moderating effect of male-stereotyped tasks was limited to the relation between women’s proportion and men’s distinctiveness threat. From the existing literatures and researches, this moderating effect seems less likely to be extended to the relation between women’s proportion and men’s information sharing. There is no explicit evidence indicating that men share less information with increasing proportion of women in male-stereotyped tasks. Therefore, future researches are needed to examine whether male-stereotyped tasks moderates the relation between women’s proportion and men’s information sharing with women.
Nonetheless, group identification is a strong moderator in the distinctiveness threat and differentiation relation (Jetten et al., 2004). A range of research has proved that group identification is crucial in predicting reactions to distinctiveness threat
membership is less important (low identifiers) (Jetten & Spears, 2003; Spears, Doojse, & Ellemers, 1999). High identifiers are more likely to stick to the group membership, and to defend the integrity of the group when the group is threatened than low identifiers (Jetten & Spears, 2003). This may explain the contrasting facts that women in blue-collar jobs were confronted with men’s open hostility and sexual harassment (Fiske, 1993; Yount, 1991), while some women reported men strongly approved of them on the job (O’Farrel and Harlan, 1982). Men with high group identification are more likely to present hostility toward women whilst those who are low identifiers are less possible to do so. In the same token, men who are high identifiers would limit their information sharing with women, but the low identifiers may not have such reaction.
This thesis focused on the team gender composition’s impact on members, but it should be noted that, organizational gender composition also places important influence on members (Ely, 1995; Elvira & Cohen, 2001; Ridgeway, 1988). Elvira and Cohen (2001) study the effects of organizational gender composition at different job levels on the turnover of men and women at the same or lower levels. They find that women are less likely to leave when women compromise a large proportion at their job levels. However, women’s turnover rate boosts in the executive level, where women are in a relative small number. Men’s turnover rate is not extensively affected by the proportions of men at or immediately above their job level, but this decreases when more men are employed in the executive levels. Ely (1995) examines how women’s proportional representation in the powerful positions within organizations affects professional women’s social constructions of gender difference and gender identity at work. It is found that women in male-dominated firms are confronted with more sex stereotypes and experience more discomfort with the sex-role requirements than those in
gender-integrated firms. That is to say, team members are dramatically affected in many aspects by the gender composition in their organizations. Thus it can be assumed that women proportions may have different consequences according to various gender compositions within organizations. Put it another way, the relations between women’s proportion and men’s information sharing tend to vary based on different organizational gender
Further researches are needed on group identification and organizational gender composition.
REFERENCE
Berdhal, J. L. 1996. Gender and leadership in work groups: six alternative models. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 21-40.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. 1980. Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6: 479-508.
Blalock, H. M. 1957. Per cent non-white and discrimination in the South. American Sociological Review, 22: 677-682.
Blumer, H. 1958. Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1: 3-7.
Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. 1999. The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds), Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content: 35-58. Oxford: Blackwell.
Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. 1993. In-group or out-group extremity: importance of the threatened social identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19: 381-388.
Brown, P. J. 1984. The role of similarity in intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Eds), The Social Dimension: European Developments in Social Psychology, vol. 2: 603-623. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. J., & Abram, D. 1986. The effects of intergroup similarity and goal interdependence on intergroup attitudes and task performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22: 78-92.
Brown, P. J., & Wade, G. 1987. Superordinate goals and intergroup behavior: the effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 131-142.
Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. 2001. Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 195-202.
Choi, Y., & Hon, L. C. 2002. The influence of gender composition in powerful
positions on public relations practitioners’ gender-related perceptions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14: 229-263.
Connerley, M. L., Mecham, R. L., & Strauss, J. P. 2008. Gender differences in leadership competencies, expatriate readiness, and performance. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 23: 300-316.
Cooper, H. M. 1979a. Pygmalion grows up: a model for teacher expectation
communication and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49: 389-410.
Cooper, H. M. 1979b. Statistically combining independent studies: a meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 131-146.
Doojse, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. 1995. Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31: 410-436.
Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role Interpretation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 1981. Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: a meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90: 1-20.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109: 573-598.
Elvira, M. M., & Cohen, L. E., 2001. Location matters: a cross-level analysis of the effects of organizational sex composition on turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 44: 591-605.
Ely, R. J. 1995. The power in demography: women’s social constructions of gender identity at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 38: 589-634.
Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6): 621-628.
Glick, P., Wilk, K., & Perreault, M. 1995. Images of occupations: components of gender and status in occupational stereotypes. Sex Roles, 32: 565-582.
Hackman, J. R. 1999. Thinking differently about context. In R. Wageman (Eds), Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 233-247. Stanford: JAI Press Inc. Huici, C. 1984. The individual and social functions of sex role stereotypes. In H. Tajfel (Eds), The Social Dimension: European Developments in Social Psychology, vol. 2: 579-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Izraeli, D. N. 1983. Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter’s theory of proportions. Social Forces, 62: 153-165.
Jetten, J., Spear, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. 1996. Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: distinctiveness self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 1222-1233.
Jetten, J., Spear, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. 1997. Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 27: 635-657.
Jetten, J., Spear, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. 1998. Defining dimensions of distinctiveness: group variability makes a difference to differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1481-1492.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. 1999. Group distinctiveness and
intergroup discrimination. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds), Social identity: Context, Commitment, Content: 107-126. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jetten, J., & Spears, R. 2003. The divisive potential of differences and similarities: the role of intergroup distinctiveness in intergroup differentiation. European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 14: 203-241.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, 2004. Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: a meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86: 862-879.
Judith, G. O. 2000. Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27: 321-334.
Jurik, N. C. 1985. An officer and a lady: organizational barriers to women working as correctional officers in men’s prisons. Social Problems, 32: 375- 388.
Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. 1997. Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: an illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 296-309.
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. The American Journal of Sociology, 82: 965-990. Konrad, A. M., Winter, S., & Gutek, B. A. 1992. Diversity in work group sex
composition: implication s for majority and minority members. In P. Tolbert, & S. B. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 10: 115-140. London: JAI Press.
Karakowsky, L., & McBey, K. 2001. Do my contributions matter? The influence of imputed expertise on member involvement and self-evaluations in the work group.
Group and Organization Management, 26: 70-92.
Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., & Chuang, Y. 2004. Perceptions of team performance: the impact of group composition and task-based cues. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19: 506-525.
Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., & Miller, D. L. 2004. Gender, perceived competence, and power displays: examining verbal interruptions in a group context. Small Group Research, 35: 407-439.
Karakowsky, L., & Siegel, J. P., 1999. The effects of proportional representation and gender-orientation of the task on emergent leadership behavior in mix-gender groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 620-631.
Lenney, E. 1977. Women’s self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 84: 1-13.
Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M., 1989. Intergroup relations. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 40: 45-81.
Mummendey, A., & Schreiber, H. 1984. Social comparison, similarity and ingroup favoritism---a replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14: 231-233.
O’Farrell, B., & Harlan, S. L. 1982. Craftworkers and clerks: the effects of male co-worker hostility on women’s satisfaction with non-traditional jobs. Social Problems, 29: 252-265.
Ott, E. M. 1989. Effects of the male-female ratio at work: policewomen and male nurses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13: 41-57.
Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. 1987. The effect of the proportion of women on salaries: the case of college administrators. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 1-24. Randel, A. E. 2002. Identity salience: a moderator of the relationship between group
gender composition and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 749-766.
Reskin, B. F. 1988. Bringing the men back in: sex differentiation and the devaluation of women’s work. Gender and Society, 2: 58-81.
Reskin, B. F., McBrier, D. B., & Kmec, J. A. 1999. The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 335-361.
South, S. J., Bonjean, C. M., Markham, W. T., & Corder, J. 1982. Social structure and intergroup interaction: men and women of the federal bureaucracy. American Sociological Association: 47: 587-599.
South, S. J., Bonjean, C. M., Markham, W. T., & Corder, J. 1983. Female labor force participation and the organizational experiences of male workers. The
Sociological Quarterly, 24: 367-380.
Spangler, E., Gordon, M. A., Pipkin, & R. M. 1978. Token women: an empirical test of Katnter’s hypothesis. The American Journal of Sociology, 84: 160-170. Spear, R. Doojse, B., & Ellemers, N. 1997. Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. 1999. Commitment and the context of social perception. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds), Social identity: Context, Commitment, Content: 107-126. Oxford: Blackwell.
Spence, J. T., & Hahn, E. D. 1997. The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21: 17-34.
Tajfel, H. 1978. Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Eds), Differentiation between Social Groups: 61-76. London: Academic Press. Tannen, D. 1992. You just don’t understand it. London: Virago Press.
Taynor, J., & Deaux, K. 1973. When women are more deserving than men: equity, attribution, and perceived sex differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28: 360-367.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1992. Being different: relational
demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549-579.
Turner, J. C. 1978. Social comparison, similarity and ingroup favoritism. In H. Tajfel (Eds), Differentiation between Social Groups: 235-250. London: Academic Press. Turner, J. C. 1987. A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J.
Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory: 42-67. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Twenge, J. M. 1997. Attitudes toward women, 1970-1995: a meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21: 35-51.
Vancouver, J. B., & Ilgen, D. R. 1989. Effects of interpersonal orientation and sex-type of the task on choosing to work alone or in groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74: 927-934.
Van Knippenberg, A. D. 1978. Status difference, comparative relevance and intergroup differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Eds), Differentiation between Social Groups: 171-199. London: Academic Press.
Van Knippenberg, A. D., & Ellemers, N. 1990. Social identity and intergroup
differentiation processes. European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 1: 137-169.
Wharton, A. S., & Baron, J. N. 1987. So happy together? The impact of gender
segregation on men at work. American Sociological Association, 52: 574-587. Williams, C. L. 1992. The glass escalator: hidden advantages for men in the “female”
professions. Social Problems, 39: 253-267.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. 2004. From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71: 286-310.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P., & Zuckerman, C. 1999. Mutual enhancement: toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 967-978.
Yoder, J. D. 1991. Rethinking tokenism: looking beyond numbers. Gender and Society, 5: 178-192.
Yount, K. R. 1991. Ladies, flirts, and tomboys: strategies for managing sexual
harassment in an underground coal mine. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19: 396-422.
