Women’s day often brings with it a resurgence of disheartening statistics such as only 1% of venture capital in Africa has gone to female founders, women fill less than 20% of US tech jobs and only hold 14% of positions at board level. Amidst these dismal numbers Zymergen, relatively new to Silicon Valley, caught headlines in 2017 with women making up 40% of their technical workforce.
Zymergen attributes its success to its revamped interview process. A standard feature of Silicon Valley technical hiring is the “whiteboard interview,” in which applicants write code on a whiteboard to answer real-time hypothetical problems posed by interviewers. This approach privileges confident and aggressive programmers, who perform well alone and under pressure. That’s a long way of saying it privileges men. Recognizing this, Zymergen switched out whiteboard interviews for “job talks,” which asked candidates to describe their past work and experiences collaborating with others. The change helped create an organization culture more welcoming to women.
Psychologists Sapna Cheryan and Hazel Rose Makrus argue that this approach was successful because it was willing to “masculine defaults.” In a largely male-dominated labor force, economic institutions (such as workplaces) have cultures that normalize and privilege traditionally masculine traits. In the case of Silicon Valley, tech firms perceive competitiveness and independence — traditionally masculine characteristics — as indicative of technical ability. Although these firms are not explicitly excluding women, their assumption that masculine traits are “better” makes it harder for women to get hired. In contrast, Zymergen incorporated collaboration — a traditionally feminine characteristic — into their hiring decision without sacrificing technical standards.
The “masculine defaults” framework sheds light on an ongoing puzzle: why have extensive institutional efforts to recruit and retain female employees failed to achieve sustained gender equality in the workplace? Cheryan and Markus believe it is because gender inclusive initiatives have focused on tackling differential treatment instead of masculine defaults. The former, which targets more overt forms of sexism, helps ensure that women have equal access to opportunities. The latter ensures that once women “step through the door,” they encounter an institutional culture that does not disadvantage them. If differential treatment is eliminated without also addressing masculine defaults, then gender disparities will persist.
Why do masculine defaults disadvantage women? While there are many relevant mechanisms, we believe a large (and relatively unexamined) part of the answer lies in a universal human need: belongingness. We all strive to fit in, and failing to do so can be costly to our wellbeing. Cultural mismatch is also costly for businesses. Workers deprived of belongingness are less productive and more likely to quit.
To understand why, think back to your first day at a new job. You were excited for new opportunities and hoped to hit the ground running. However, you were also nervous. There were many things you still didn’t understand, and it would be a while before you felt comfortable. If you are like us, one of the more difficult things to decode was your new job’s atmosphere, vibe, and social “rules.” What kind of jokes can you make? When is it alright to say no? Who do you sit with at lunch? Although uncertainties like these seem small, they negatively impact our happiness and productivity. Navigating new cultural norms in order to “fit in” is stressful, which diverts limited mental resources away from our work. Likewise, when we feel that we do not belong, we are less motivated to work hard or contribute to the group.
The problem with masculine defaults is that women often start “further away” from the prevailing cultural environment. This means women must spend more mental resources and emotional labor to “fit in” than men. They may also lose motivation if they do not feel like they are welcomed members of the organization. In the long-term, these efforts can take a toll. For instance, women are more likely to suffer from burnout or imposter syndrome. Women, learning from past experiences, may also self-select out of masculine (and typically high-paying) careers because they don’t think the inevitable emotional labor needed to “fit in” is worth it. Cultural distance may also manifest as overt boundaries; recruiters that prioritize “cultural fit” may actually be selecting for “fit” to masculine norms. Although the idea that women are disadvantaged by cultural distance is not new, direct research into the relationship between women’s economic empowerment and their sense of workplace belonging remains limited.
Testing whether gendered processes create cultural distance for women in the workplace.
What did we do?
In this Off the Record, we wanted to experimentally test whether cultural distance and deprivations of belongingness affect worker productivity, particularly women. We invited 546 current and former students from Strathmore University in Nairobi to participate in a two-stage experiment, which asked them to perform two tasks and answer short questions on their beliefs. The idea behind the experiment was to vary how “included” respondents felt, then to measure their performance on a set of tasks. If our belongingness theory is correct, then participants who were made to feel less included will perform worse.
Stage One: Gendered Language
The first stage used gendered language to signal inclusivity based on a participant’s gender identity. This draws from prior research showing that language can project gender bias. For instance, academic disciplines that emphasize “brilliance” — a traditionally masculine trait — are less likely to have female and minority candidates. Gaucher, Friesen, and Kay (2011) similarly found that when mock job ads include more masculine language, women find them less appealing.
Participants were asked to perform a polygon identification task (the same task used in a prior Busara OTR). We showed them a screen with 24 geometric shapes, where each shape had either 7, 8, 9, or 10 sides. Participants had to tell us whether the screen had more 7-sided or 9-sided shapes. They played the game 15 times and received 40 KES for each screen they answered correctly.
The catch? We randomized the instructions for the task. In one version, we used a masculine framing to describe the task, and in the other, we used a feminine framing. The gender-coded words were taken from a list created by Gaucher and her co-authors. If correct, our theory expects participants who were matched with a framing that mirrors their gender identity to feel more “included” and score higher on the polygon identification exercise.
Stage Two: Dignity
The next stage of the experiment explored how perceptions of dignity affect productivity. We were inspired by the work of Tom Wein and The Dignity Project, which investigates the consequences of dignity in international development research. Through surveys, they found that disrespecting people made them less happy, less cooperative, less empowered, and more aggressive. We hypothesize that respect helps people feel included and aligned with an organization, which reduces stress and motivates productivity.
To vary respect, we randomized the same pool of respondents into one of three groups:
- Control: respondents were told, in plain language, how many screens they assessed correctly in the polygon task (“You scored [X] out of 15 questions correct”).
- Light Dignity: respondents were asked five questions about their experience playing the polygon game. Afterwards, they received the same message as the control group.
- Strong Dignity: respondents were given the same five-question survey as the “light dignity” group and a message telling them about their performance on the polygon task. However, unlike the prior two groups, we customized the message to address respondents by their name and express gratitude for their participation.
Each treatment was designed to show more “respect” to participants. The control group presented a baseline descriptive message. “Light dignity” goes further by giving participants the ability to “communicate” with us and express feedback. “Strong dignity” goes even further by personalizing the generic message.
Participants were then asked to play a barcode game. We displayed two barcodes on a screen, each with 48 lines of varying thickness. Participants had to identify whether there were any differences between the barcodes. They played the game 15 times and won 40 KES per correct answer. Our hypothesis predicts that those in higher respect groups will perform better.
What did we learn?
There was no strong evidence that either treatments — gendered language framing or respectfulness — affected productivity. Using masculine language to describe the polygon task to women (and vice-versa) did not reduce their performance in the task. LIkewise, showing respondents more “respect” did not motivate them to perform better on the barcode task.
However, while small simulations of cultural distance did not lead to significant changes in behavior, respondents did notice the treatments. A manipulation check on 10% of participants found that those who received a polygon task framing that conflicts with their gender identity were more likely to perceive the description as not inclusive. When asked if they found the descriptive inclusive, about 89% of those with matched gender framings responded “yes” (vs “no” or “somewhat”) compared to only 65% of those with mismatched framings.
We also found that respondents perceived Busara as more respectful if they were treated with one of the dignity conditions. Using an approach developed by The Dignity Project, we created a five-point “dignity index” that measures whether respondents found us respectful. Those who received the “light dignity” condition had a dignity index 0.24 points higher than the control, and those part of the “strong dignity” group had a dignity index 0.30 points higher than the control.
More interestingly, there was some evidence that women were more sensitive to the dignity treatment than men. A simple comparison of means revealed that women who received the “strong dignity” condition had a dignity index 0.29 points higher than the control. Men however, had no statistical difference in index score. When we modeled the relationship using an interaction effect, the “strong dignity” treatment improved the dignity index of men by 0.27 points less than women. However, this relationship was only significant at p<0.066. We didn’t find strong evidence of a gender effect from the “light dignity” treatment.
We concluded the survey by asking participants about what they value in a workplace. While both men and women expressed similar desires for respectful and gender diverse workplaces, women were more likely to agree that they would not work in a disrespectful workplace even if paid a lot. On a scale of 1–5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree), women scored 3.96 compared to 3.72 for men.
Conclusion
We did not find that small incitements of cultural mismatch lead to differences in productivity for men or women. We also did not find that men and women value dignity and workplace diversity differently, at least when asked about their views directly. However, we did find that people are able to notice small variations in cultural distance and women are more averse to disrespectful workplaces even when compensated well.
What does this mean? Although we did not find a relationship between cultural mismatch and productivity, this could reflect experimental conditions. People may have short-term resilience to cultural distance, so the quick nature of our experiment was not enough to induce changes in behavior. Instead, the effects of cultural distance may be a slow burn that manifests over time. Another possibility is WEIRDness. We drew from Western research to design the gender framings. However, culture is contextual, and the masculine defaults of Kenya may differ from the West. In future research, we should explore how masculine defaults manifest in different cultures.
We also found relationships that can inform actionable insights. Our participants were able to notice our inducements of cultural mismatch, and there was some evidence that women were more sensitive to these inducements. Workplaces should acknowledge that even subtle or small acts of cultural distance do not go unnoticed, and they may cause greater discomfort for women.
