|
|
|
An Investigation of Gender Composition on Integrated Project Team Performance Gül E. Okudan1, Meghan Russell2, Donald Horner2, Barbara Bogue3 and Richard Devon1 Department of Engineering Design and Graphics1 Engineering Leadership Development Program2 Women in Engineering Program3 The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 Abstract This study undertakes an investigation to measure the effects of gender composition in integrated project teams and the proportion of women in an organization on two dependent variables: 1) team performance, and 2) team cohesion. Team performance is measured using: 1) team quizzes, which account for 5% of the total evaluation, 2) peer evaluations of the design demonstration (23.75%), and 3) a blind evaluation of the team’s report (71.25%). Criteria for project performance include thoroughness of the project report, timeliness of the project report submission, compliance to project requirements, and utilization of engineering problem solving skills. Team cohesion is also assessed by interviews, in-class observations and the team performance questionnaire (TPQ) (Riechmann, 1998).
Introduction An integrated project team (IPT) is a multidisciplinary, relatively autonomous, project oriented work team (Department of Defense, 1996). IPTs are used in industry, not only to increase productivity in solving problems but also to form and sustain strategic capabilities through employee learning. New product development is one application area where the utilization of IPTs is regarded as critical to the formation of strategic product development capabilities (Klein and Maurer, 1995; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Wheelwright and Clark, 1992). To prepare students for similar problem solving responsibilities, and to foster engineering principles learning, a comparable approach to IPTs is used during the Introduction to Engineering Design and Graphics (ED&G 100) course at the Pennsylvania State University.
Four-student project teams work on two design projects over a 16-week semester. Design projects focus on product improvement or solution designs. In general, students are from a variety of engineering majors, because the course is mandatory for most engineering majors. However, non-engineering students may enroll as well. Thus, multidisciplinary teams are typically formed. Despite the widespread use of integrated project teams, they are not always effective (Okudan et al. 2001). This is true in both industrial and educational settings. One factor associated with team effectiveness is team composition (Steiner, 1972). Because of the increasing number of women joining the work force over the years, the gender effect on team performance has received attention. The results of previous studies have been conflicting, because some researchers have found homogeneous teams to be more productive, whereas others concluded on the contrary. The effect of the proportion of women in an organization has also been investigated, and found to be significant (Ely 1994, 1995; Shenhav and Haberfeld, 1992). However, the effect of gender composition in teams and the effect of female/male ratio in organizations on the performance of IPTs have not been investigated simultaneously over an extensive period of time. The study is to fill this current void.
Furthermore, the high performing team skills training is also included in the study as an independent variable to observe the effect it has on team performance. The results of this research can have important implications on project environment design, team formation and team performance evaluation.
Literature Review Due to the increasing number of women joining the work force over the years (Jackson, 1992), various aspects of gender issue have been investigated. The effect of gender homogeneity on team performance is one such aspect. Interestingly, research comparing the decision quality of all-female teams to all-male teams has shown that all-female teams performed worse than all male teams (Sashkin and Maier, 1971), performed equally to all-male teams (Bray, Kerr and Atkin, 1978) and outperformed all-male teams (Wood, Poleck and Atkin, 1985).
These conflicting results have been partly explained by the confounding effect of experimental task type on team performance. For example, all-male teams were shown to perform better in short-term task activities, and all-female teams were shown to perform better in social activities (Wood, 1987; Eagly and Karau, 1991). Building on these findings, Rogelberg and Rumery (1996) showed that when a male favoring task is used, potential gains on decision quality derived from increasing the number of males in four-person teams would plateau at a team male to female composition ratio of three to one, i.e., the lone-female groups outperformed the all-male groups. The experimental task for this study was a winter survival exercise (Johnson and Johnson, 1987), which lasted less than an hour. Thus, the study could only be generalized for temporary task forces rather than IPTs. One other issue that was not considered is the fact that teams are embedded in larger organizations, and the composition of the organization may also affect individual and team performance. For example, individuals who are in numeric minority within organizations have been found to suffer from increased performance pressure (Kanter, 1977).
The proportion of women in an organization, which is more relevant to the gender issue, has also been investigated and found to be significant. Ely (1994, 1995) found that a higher proportion of females in a law firm influenced attitudes among female associates. Ely reported that female associates viewed female partners more positively, evaluated women’s attributes more positively relative to criteria for success, and perceived less psychological and behavioral difference between men and women in firms with 15% or more female partners compared with female associates in firms with less than 15% female partners. Moreover Shenhav and Haberfeld (1992) showed that female ratio had a curvilinear effect on salaries, with lower salaries being paid to women in organizations with low and high proportions of female employees. The proportion of women employed in the firm had no effect on men’s salaries. Team cohesion has also been studied for mixed-gender, same-gender, lone-female, and lone-male teams. Aries (1976) found males preferred mixed gender teams, whereas females preferred all-female teams. Other studies (Kanter, 1977; Yerby, 1975) have found that lone-female teams exhibit the least team cohesion.
In an effort to extend the aforementioned studies, this study investigates team performance and cohesion over a 16-week period during which two engineering design tasks are performed by a set of homogeneous, mixed gender, and lone–female teams in three different environments with female to male ratios ranging from 15.6% to 48.5%.
Experimental Setting and Application Three sections of the ED&G 100 course at the Pennsylvania State University during the Fall 2001 semester were used for this study. Each section consisted of eight, four-person teams, representing an organization. The female percentage in each of the included three sections and the distribution of the majors of the enrolled students are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Female/male ratio and intended majors of students for sections
In a previous study, the effect of current average GPA (Grade Point Average) standing of the team on the team performance was found to be significant (Okudan et al., 2001). Thus, teams were formed with comparable GPAs. Mathematics portion of the SAT scores were used for first semester students because they do not have a GPA. For each team, GPA and/or SAT distribution, gender composition, and semester standing for each team member is shown in Table 2.
If for any team, both SAT and GPA scores are used, the number of team members is given in parenthesis for the relevant score, i.e., 3.0 (1) and 640 (1). NC means non-degree candidate, and PR means provisional.
Table 2. Gender composition, GPA/SAT, semester standing information
IPT performance is measured using team quizzes, design demonstrations (during which designs are evaluated by peers), and a blind evaluation of each team’s design report. Peer evaluations of contribution levels within teams are also used as a performance metric. The grading weight of the team quiz is 5%, the weight of the peer design evaluation is 23.75% and that of the blind evaluation is 71.25%. For both design projects, these grades are used to establish a project grade for each design team. Thoroughness of the project report, timeliness of the project report submission, compliance to project requirements, and utilization of engineering problem solving skills are used as criteria for project performance evaluations.
As noted earlier, team cohesion is assessed through the TPQ (Riechmann, 1998). This instrument measures work group characteristics related to level of team performance. Specific variables include team goals, collaboration, competencies, communication process, climate, and leadership. Independent and dependant variables of the study are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Independent and dependant variables
The study is being conducted during fall 2001 semester. Thus, the application phase of the study is not complete. After formation of the teams, the observation started in the second week with the first design project. For each section, observation lasts one hour per week during the design lab session for the course. A detailed analysis of the project results will be presented in a forthcoming publication.
Conclusions This study is being conducted to fill a void in the literature on combined effect of gender composition within a team and organizational gender ratio on integrated project team performance. A detailed analysis of the project results will be presented in a forthcoming publication. The results of this research can have important implications on project environment design, team formation and team performance evaluation.
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ASEE 
