Gender mix and team performance: Differences between exogenously and endogenously formed teams

Fenoll, Ainoa Aparicio; Zaccagni, Sarah

doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2022.102269

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…39 Moreover, members of self-selected groups acquired 3.3 percentage points more knowledge and are 12.5 percentage points more satisfied than those in randomly formed groups. Our group performance results align with Fischer, Rilke, and Yurtoglu (2023) on group presentations and contradict Fenoll and Zaccagni (2022) and Kiessling, Radbruch, and Schaube (2022). Compared to our setting, the task in Kiessling, Radbruch, and Schaube (2022) is non-collaborative, and effort does not affect the public good.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Students in cohort 2021 are randomly assigned in the winter term and self-select groups in the summer term. We registered a pre-analysis plan in the American 13 E.g., Kiessling, Radbruch, and Schaube (2022), Fenoll and Zaccagni (2022), Fischer, Rilke, and Yurtoglu (2023), and Boss et al (2021 use tasks accounting up to 15% of the final grade.…”

Section: Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 This paper adds to the literature on group formation and performance by conducting a field experiment in a data analysis course that involved high-stakes and cognitively challenging tasks. The most related studies to ours are from Fischer, Rilke, and Yurtoglu (2023), Fenoll and Zaccagni (2022), and Kiessling, Radbruch, and Schaube (2022), who also conduct classroom field experiments to compare the performance of self-selected and randomly formed groups. 6 Fischer, Rilke, and Yurtoglu (2023) examine how the group formation process affects the skill composition and performance of groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their task was low-stakes (15% of student grade) for a team of two, while ours was high-stakes (70% of final grade) for a group of three. While Fischer, Rilke, and Yurtoglu (2023) find evidence that self-selected groups perform worse in a classroom setting, Fenoll and Zaccagni (2022) and Kiessling, Radbruch, and Schaube (2022) find evidence that the opposite is the case. 7 In Fenoll and Zaccagni (2022), high school students are randomly or self-selected into groups of six students during a mathematics summer camp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Fischer, Rilke, and Yurtoglu (2023) find evidence that self-selected groups perform worse in a classroom setting, Fenoll and Zaccagni (2022) and Kiessling, Radbruch, and Schaube (2022) find evidence that the opposite is the case. 7 In Fenoll and Zaccagni (2022), high school students are randomly or self-selected into groups of six students during a mathematics summer camp. They find that self-selected groups perform significantly better than randomly formed groups in a competition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Performance, Knowledge Gain, Cooperation and Satisfaction in Endogenous Groups: Evidence from a Classroom Field Experiment

Düker¹

2020

AEA Randomized Controlled Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate how to efficiently set up work groups to boost group productivity, individual satisfaction, and learning. Therefore, we conduct a natural field experiment in a compulsory undergraduate course and study differences between self-selected and randomly assigned groups. We find that self-selected groups perform significantly worse on group assignments. Yet, students in self-selected groups learn more and are more satisfied than those in randomly assigned groups. The effect of allowing students to pick group members dominates the effect of different group compositions in selfselected groups: When controlling for the skill, gender, and home region composition of groups, the differences between self-selected and randomly formed groups persist almost unaltered. The distribution of GitHub commits per group reveals that the better average performance of randomly assigned groups is mainly driven by highly skilled individuals distributed over more groups due to the assignment mechanism. Moreover, these highly skilled individuals contribute more to the group in randomly formed groups. We argue that this mechanism explains why self-selected groups perform worse on the projects but acquire more knowledge than randomly formed groups. These findings are relevant for setting up workgroups in academic, business, and governmental organizations when tasks are not constrained to the skill set of specific individuals.

show abstract