Single-sex teams are something for the football pitch, not the workplace. It’s not the 1950s. Many studies show the benefits of mixed teams: among scientists, for example, they produce more impactful research.
But does it matter how mixed they are? Yes, for the women in them, concludes fascinating American research. In a couple of experiments, undergraduates were randomly assigned to small (five or six people) male- or female-majority teams, who then worked together for a period as part of their studies.
The researchers tested if gender balance affected the perceived and actual influence of men and women – via surveys of the students.
The result? Male-majority teams don’t pay much attention to women. Not only are women in those teams less likely to be rated as influential (by other women as well as men), they are less influential (women in male-majority groups were less likely to shift the group view towards their own).
Men in female-majority teams were four times more likely to be appointed as a spokesperson than women in male-majority teams (37% v 9%). The authors highlighted the risks of token efforts, such as adding one women to a board dominated by men.
What about group leadership? Well, in one experiment a male or female team leader was appointed, with big effects: “Assigning a female leader reduces the rate at which individual teammates discriminate against women by more than 50%.”
This may, or may not, be an argument for the Conservative party (in which seven in 10 members and three in four MPs are male) electing Kemi Badenoch. Thankfully, I don’t have a vote.
• Torsten Bell is Labour MP for Swansea West and author of Great Britain? How We Get Our Future Back
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk
