Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This Woolley paper [0] cited in the article gives three reasons for effective teams. The NYT only tells you two behaviors. True enough. The third is not a behavior. It is "the proportion of females in the group".

Paper says "Finally, c was positively and significantly correlated with the proportion of females in the group (r = 0.23, P = 0.007). However, this result appears to be largely mediated by social sensitivity (Sobelz = 1.93, P = 0.03), because (consistent with previous research) women in our sample scored better on the social sensitivity measure than men [t(441) = 3.42, P = 0.001]. In a regression analysis with the groups for which all three variables (social sensitivity, speaking turn variance, and percent female) were available, all had similar predictive power for c, although only social sensitivity reached statistical significance (b = 0.33, P = 0.05)."

[0] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ab/Salon/research/Woolley_et_al_Scie...



It seems to make sense to not cite that as an additional factor, given that it is almost fully mediated by one of the factors already listed. There is an interesting observation in here that women have on average higher social sensitivity, though it looks like measuring social sensitivity directly in job interviews and other team building processes is just more effective than looking at gender (though a bit harder to do, I would guess).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: