November DEI Journal Club – Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability
For the November DEI journal club, Dr. Juan Carvajal-Garcia, a postdoctoral fellow in the Merrikh lab, presented Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability, a 2017 study published in the American Economic Review. In this study, the authors explored questions surrounding the allocation of “low promotability” tasks, those which benefit everyone in a given group or organization, but at the cost of the one performing it. In an academic setting, such tasks might include organizing extracurricular department activities such as retreats, serving on various committees, taking a term on the faculty senate, etc. More specifically, the authors asked the question: Do women spend more time in “low promotability” tasks? If so, what might be some contributing factors?
To answer these questions, a survey of 3271 faculty members was conducted in which the participants were asked to join the faculty senate. While 92% of those receiving the email did not respond (a statistic the journal club did not find at all surprising), of the 8% that did respond, there was an even split of men and women responding and similar proportions of yes/no responses. Since only 25% of the total faculty population was female, this 50/50 split meant that a significantly higher proportion of the available pool of women faculty said yes compared to the male faculty, indicating that among faculty members, women said yes to “low promotability” tasks.
To further explore this question, experiments were also conducted with undergraduate students. To simulate a “low promotability” scenario, the students were split into groups of 3 and underwent 10, 2-minute rounds. During each round, a volunteer was sought. If no one volunteered, every person got $1. If one person volunteered, the volunteer would get $1.25, but the other two people would get $2, meaning that the volunteer would benefit less than the others. For the first set of experiments, groups contained both male and female participants. The study found that, regardless of whether it was round 1 or 10, the female participants were more likely to volunteer than the males.
To explore whether the difference was the result of differences in preferences between men and women, or the perception of another’s preference, the same experiment was conducted with all male and all female groups. When divided in this way, both groups demonstrated an equal probability of volunteering, indicating that the higher probability of women to volunteer in a mixed gender group was likely due to an assumption that the men in the group would not volunteer. The authors concluded that there was no internal preference leading women to volunteer more, but that the behavior was due to the women’s perception of the men’s preferences. The study went on to determine if this perception of preferences extended beyond the volunteers. Participants were asked to predict who would volunteer from the other groups. Interestingly, the rate of accurate prediction was higher than random chance. These results indicated that the guessers also had some perception that the women in the groups were more likely to volunteer than the men were.
Finally, the study sought to address whether women are asked to volunteer more than men. The same experiment was conducted as before, but with the addition of a fourth person acting as a “requestor” who anonymously asked someone in the group to volunteer. The study found that women were asked to volunteer more often than men, and that when requested, a higher proportion of women volunteered than men, at 51% of men vs. 76% of women. This result was the same regardless of whether the requestor was male or female. Therefore, these studies not only demonstrated an internal perception that the men in a group would not volunteer as much as the women, but that women were also more frequently subjected to external pressures to do so. The results of this study, when put together, demonstrated that implicit biases regarding men and women’s likelihood to accept “low promotability” tasks actually led to tangible differences in how the two groups were approached regarding those tasks.
During the discussion, the group principally discussed what kinds of practices might be employed in our own lab settings and in the biochemistry department to help ensure that the women were not overburdened with necessary but thankless tasks. One suggestion at the lab level was to simply forego volunteer-based assignments, designating responsibilities on a rotating basis. This was particularly thought of regarding lab chores and other weekly or monthly duties. It was also noted that having PI’s take note of their people’s responsibilities would help to ensure that everyone shares the load. At the department level, several people suggested that “low promotability” tasks such as running committees or organizing retreats could be incentivized by reprioritizing those tasks when making tenure or other hiring decisions or providing financial incentives for running said activities. Additionally, giving people credit for the work that they do would be a way to bring value to that work and show due appreciation to the people who make sacrifices of their time to tasks that everyone benefits from.
Juan concluded the discussion with a number of questions that we could consider the next time we ask someone to volunteer for something, or we are asked to volunteer. The next time you’re asking someone to volunteer, consider:
- Why are you asking this particular person? Is it because you think they would be a good fit, or because you think they’ll say yes?
- Why is this person saying yes or no?
Similarly, if you’re asked to volunteer, consider:
- Why are you being asked?
- Why are you saying yes or no?
- And, if you say no, who is going to do it in your stead?
Leave a Response