Men in Straightjackets

MEN IN STRAIGHTJACKETS: LEAN IN V. LEAN OUT BACKGROUND In the wake of Sheryl Sandberg’s revolutionary book, Lean In, women and men alike were motivated to engage in healthy dialogue concerning gender-based challenges in the workplace.

The book espoused, among many other beliefs, the idea that women were not merely restrained by their male counterparts but by themselves, through their subconscious suppression of ambition and their disinclination to market and credit themselves as compared to men (Sandberg, 2013).

Sandberg’s anthem to gender equality prompted a nationwide “Lean In” movement, engendering a more conscious effort on the part of women to make their voices and ideas heard in the workplace. Along the same vein of thought, many called for men to “lean out” from their workdominated lives, involving themselves in the quest to close the ostensible gender gap between the work and the home (Winkler, 2015).

In our study, we examine both behaviors – female “lean in” and male “lean out” – in a controlled experimental group setting. We aim to test the hypothesis that asking men to lean out is more effective in optimizing group dynamics than asking women to lean in. We believe this to be true due to two major reasons. First, women who are perceived as overly assertive (by other women) may face more backlash than men who fail to be perceived as assertive. Second, this backlash may stem from male aggression. In the face of women who project their confidence and assertiveness, some men may feel somewhat emasculated and strive to show their dominance even more (by interrupting women more, raising their voice, etc.)

In order to test our hypothesis, we plan to run a study in the context of a hidden profile task. In such a task, members of a group are each given information (both shared and unshared) that they use to reach a decision after group discussion. The unique characteristic of a hidden 1

profile task is that a “superior decision alternative exists” but is only favored and discerned as the superior choice when all of the unshared information is pooled together (Stasser and Stewart, 1992). Thus, without an optimal group dynamic that promotes sharing of information by all members, discussions tend to focus on shared information, leading to an overlooking of the hidden profile. In fact, researchers have found that decision quality in hidden profile tasks is affected only by the amount of unshared information discussed and not the amount of shared information, revealing the importance of pooling all members’ unshared information in creating a full information set (Winquist and Larson, 1998). In this study, we plan to test the effectiveness of leaning in v. leaning out in the context of a hidden profile task in order to detect which set of manipulated conditions will induce a higher level of group communication and information sharing.

METHODS Study Design We used a modified version of a hidden profile task, PB Technologies, which was developed by the Kellogg School of Management Dispute Resolution Center (Peterson, 2001).

The original exercise is as follows: The top management team of PB Technologies is asked to recommend to the CEO one of three finalists for the position of Chief Financial Officer (CFO). For one candidate, the only common information is negative, and most groups eliminate her without discussion. If groups do discuss her and share information effectively, they discover that she has the most positive profile overall. The other two candidates each have significant unshared negative information. One candidate has a moderate amount of negative information. Most of unshared information for the other is negative.

2

In our study, we created groups of 4 participants each (2 females and 2 males). Within each group, each participant takes on a different role at the company (VP of Operations, VP of Marketing, VP of Human Resources, and VP of Sales). All participants receive initial instructions that inform them of the decision-making nature of the task as well as the knowledge that one of the finalists is the optimal choice for hire. In accordance with the stipulations of the hidden profile task, each participant receives information about all three finalists, some which is unshared and appears only in his or her information packet and some which is shared among all participants.

Each participant has 20 minutes to read through the information packet and jot down notes about each finalist as well as voice his or her initial choice for hire on an individual preference form. The individual round is followed by the group discussion (15 minutes), during which all participants can freely and openly discuss anything that they found significant and interesting during their individual analysis. Finally, after the group has made its decision, each participant fills out a comprehensive individual questionnaire about various aspects of the group dynamic during the discussion.

The modification that we made to the original PB Technologies exercise is the addition of lean in and lean out manipulation factors. We created three groups: neutral, lean in, and lean out.

The manipulation takes place at the end of the individual round, after the participant reads through the information about all three finalists. Each participant is asked to complete an additional writing task in preparation for the group discussion. Each manipulation corresponds to a different set of instructions for the additional writing task, which primes the participant towards leaning in or leaning out (or neutral) behavior. This subtle manipulation is adapted from the procedures developed by Fleeson, Malanos, and Achille (2002), in which they prime participants either towards introversion or towards extroversion by distributing different initial instructions

3

(depending on their assigned group). After reading instructions that emphasize the importance for exhibiting a certain behavior (neutral v. lean in v. lean out) during group work, participants are asked to reflect on a time when they engaged in this type of behavior and to write a few paragraphs describing the situation. This task uses the implications derived by Heslin et al. (2005), which claims that self-persuasion is the most effective persuasion tactic (compared to persuasion from others) and that this type of persuasion can be employed in an experimental setting by using attitudinal reflection and idea generation in the form of speech-writing tasks. The instructions across the groups are as follows: v Neutral: To get ready for your role, think of a time when you were part of a group. v Lean In: Scientific research now shows that behaving with confidence is the key to success as a team member. Great team members are bold, talkative, confident, and assertive. This enables them to communicate a strong, dominant vision that inspires other team members to deliver results. Now, to get ready for your role, think of a time when you were part of a group and you were bold, talkative, confident, and assertive. v Lean Out: Scientific Research now shows that behaving with some doubt is the key to success as a team member. Great team members are somewhat quiet, not dominant, express doubts, and not that assertive. This enables them to empower their team members to deliver results. Now, to get ready for your role, think of a time when you were part of a group and you were quiet, not dominant, express doubts, and not that assertive.

In order to maximize the permutations of manipulations, we created four different conditions: 1.) Control: neutral for all participants (both males and females), 2.) Lean in only: lean in for females and neutral for males, 3.) Lean out only: neutral for females and lean out for males, 4.) Both: lean in for females and lean out for males. We plan on recruiting 400 participants in order

4

to run a total of 100 groups (25 sets). Other than the gender stipulation of 2 females and 2 males, participants are randomly assigned to their groups.

Performance Metrics v Quality of contributions. Each participant will indicate the percentage of total useful information each team member provided during the team discussion. v Amount of talking. Each participant will indicate the percentage of the total time each member talked during the team discussion. v Interruptions. Each participant will indicate the number of times each of the other members interrupted them during the team discussion. v Appreciation of members. Each participant will indicate the extent to which they appreciated the approach each member used in the team discussion, the contributions each member made, and the value added of each member. v Dominance. In a similar fashion, each member will rate others on the following items: “Dominated the conversation,” “Behaved in a commanding fashion,” “Seemed to having the desire to convince others on the right course of action,” and “Imposed his/her views on other team members.” v Assertiveness. Each participant will also indicate the extent to which each member was assertive, confident, decisive and bold in the team discussions. v Liking. Each participant will also indicate the extent to which they liked each member, felt close to them, trusted them, and would like to interact again with them in the future. v Team open communication. Each member will indicate the extent to which he or she agreed with each of four statements (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) measuring communication openness: 1) All members had a chance to express opinions; 2) Team

5

members listened to each others’ input; 3) Members held back in fear of what others thought (reverse-scored); and 4) Members were free to make positive and negative comments. This scale is adapted from Barry and Stewart (1997). We will average the four items into a single score. v Team decision performance. We will assess team performance using a dichotomous variable that was equal to one if the team reached the right solution by recommending the best candidate and zero otherwise.

REVISIONS We ran an initial pilot study that we eventually halted after the discovery of flawed recruitment procedures and suboptimal manipulation instructions. We conducted the pilot study with 13 groups in total in order of the conditions. Based on the pilot study, we were able to highlight some preliminary results: v Quality of contributions: o When males were advised to lean out, females perceived the quality of their contributions to be worse (Control: 26%, Lean in only: 25%, Lean out only: 19%, Both: 17%). This perceptual change didn’t occur in males’ perception of other males (Control: 13%, Lean in only: 8%, Lean out only: 10%, Both: 11%). o Females rated their own quality of contribution lower (23%) under the control conditions compared to all other conditions. Males, on the other hand, rated their own quality of contributions higher (36%) under the control conditions compared to all other conditions, especially the Both condition (21%). o Females were rated higher on their quality of contribution by other group members (34%) than by themselves (23%) under the Control condition; this trend was

6

reversed under the Both condition (self: 26%, group: 23%). Males, on the other hand, were rated higher on their quality by themselves (36%) than by other group members (30%) under the Control condition; this trend was reversed under the Both condition (self: 21%, group: 28%). v Amount of talking: o Female participants perceived their amount of talking to be much higher (29%) than what was perceived by their group members (23%), whereas male participants aligned with the perceptions of their group members (26%). [percentages taken of Control condition] o The conditions in which the gap between self perception and group perception of talking amount was lowest were in the Lean in only condition (self: 24%, group: 25%) and the Both condition (self: 26%, group: 24%). v Other: o Females expressed much more confidence in their decision when they were asked to lean in (Control: 80%, Lean in only: 92%, Lean out only: 82%, Both: 93%). o Both males and females expressed an increase in learning new information in all other conditions compared to the Control condition. §

Females (Control: 33%, Lean in only: 48%, Lean out only: 33%, Both: 50%)

§

Males (Control: 35%, Lean in only: 60%, Lean out only: 57%, Both: 35%).

o Females expressed an increase in satisfaction with the decision in all other conditions compared to the Control condition. Males expressed the opposite: a

7

decrease in satisfaction with the decision in all other conditions compared to the Control condition. §

Females (Control: 83%, Lean in only: 98%, Lean out only: 90%, Both: 85%)

§

Males (Control: 86%, Lean in only: 83%, Lean out only: 85%, Both: 78%)

However, despite the telling nature of these preliminary results, we unfortunately cannot incorporate them into our final analysis of lean in v. lean out behaviors.

In our revised study, we changed the following major points: v In order to further incentivize the groups to optimize their group discussion effectiveness, we communicated a monetary bonus to be announced at the beginning of the group discussion. This bonus is to be awarded only if the group selects the optimal choice.

According to Stasser and Stewart (1992), groups are much less likely to overlook shared information if they know that their task has a correct answer. This is important to the hidden profile task because it means that groups that seek to most effectively utilize and leverage their resources as a group will promote the highest amount of communication by all team members (and thus discover all unshared information that would be helpful in determining the hidden superior alternative). v We allowed for more time to complete the individual portion – reading through the finalist profiles and completing the writing task. In the pilot study, we noticed that many participants either didn’t have enough time to start and complete the writing task or were neglecting the task entirely. In order to ameliorate this problem (which could affect the level of manipulation on each participant according to their level of engagement with the

8

writing prompt), we specified a time period dedicated to the writing prompt itself and extended the time period the participants to complete the individual portion of the study. v In order to more accurately track which information was shared among the group and which wasn’t (shared v. unshared), we added a section in the questionnaire that asked each participant to select, in a table, which information pieces were presented during the group discussion.

STATUS On top of the 13 groups in the pilot study, we have run 70 groups to date in the newly revised study. Due to insufficient data from the small size of group session that we have conducted, it’s hard to draw preliminary conclusions because there is a tendency for outliers to heavily skew or bias the data. We plan on running a comprehensive analysis of all performance metrics across the various conditions once the study is completed.

9

Works Cited Barry, B. Stewart, G.L. (1997). Composition, Process, and Performance in Self-Managed Groups: The Role of Personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 62-78.

Fleeson, W., Malanos, A.B., & Achille, N.M. (2002). An Intraindividual Process Approach to the Relationship Between Extraversion and Positive Affect: Is Acting Extraverted as “Good” as Being Extraverted? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1409-1422.

Heslin, P.A., Latham G.P., & Vandewalle, D. (2005). The Effect of Implicit Person Theory on Performance Appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 842-856.

Peterson, R. S. (2001). PB Technologies. Kellogg Dispute Resolution Center Teaching Activity Sandberg, S. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. First edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. Print.

Stasser, J. & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of Hidden Profiles by Decision-Making Groups: Solving a Problem Versus Making a Judgment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 426-434.

Winkler, E. “Men Need to Lean Out.” New Republic. 06 Oct 2015. Web. Winquist, J.R. & Larson, Jr., J.R. (1998). Information Pooling: When It Impacts Group Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 371-377.

10