In Lean In Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, cited a 1999 study suggesting stereotype threat undermines the performance and interest of girls and women for STEM careers – Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. She writes that it “is one of the key reasons that so few study computer science” (p. 22). Stereotype threat is a concept that has generated much social psychological research over the past 20 years. It can apply to any member of any stereotyped group. Sandberg stated that if a woman is aware of stereotypic perceptions of women, then she is more likely to behave or perform consistent with the stereotype. 

There is no question that women are underrepresented in computer science (CS) and information technology (IT).  Stereotype threat may be one factor. Stereotyping by others is another. In 2006 Karen Scales, Mary Ann Edwards, and I published a study about women in IT. Several studies we reviewed addressed socio-cultural assumptions:

• Women receive less encouragement to master computer skills than men do (Smith, 2005).
• Educators are influenced by socio-cultural assumptions about IT and computer science and “steer women away” (Ray et al., 1999).
• Some teachers (17%) and guidance counselors (12%) discouraged young women from IT (Turner et al., 2002).
• To quote one director of undergraduate computer science programs, “Somehow teachers . . . are pushing the idea that this is not a field for girls” (in Grupta & Houtz, 2000).
• In Malaysia women and men pursued undergraduate computer science degrees in near equal numbers. Key CS/IT university administrators and the majority of the computer science faculties were women. Because of the prevalence of female role models and mentors, for young Malaysian women “pursuing a career in CS/IT is a normal, indeed, unremarkable option” (Othman and Latih, 2006, p.114).

What determines whether of not a woman pursues computer science or IT? To quote from our study:

• Adya and Kaiser (2005) concluded, “parents, particularly fathers, are the key influencers of girls’ choice of IT careers” (p. 230).
• Turner et al. (2002) surveyed members of Systers, a listserv for women in IT. For the 275 women who responded, fathers were cited as encouraging by 42% and high school teachers by 37%. For women who earned an undergraduate degree in IT or computer science, by far the most important influences on their career choices were family and teachers, the most frequently mentioned influence being fathers.

The Systers survey also found that only about one third of women in their IT survey had majored in computer science or IT as undergraduates. Richard Rashid, a senior vice president at Microsoft in 2005, suggested to educators, “You need to talk about the romance of the field. It’s not all about people sitting in cubicles eating pizza and typing away endless hours on a keyboard” (Foster, 2005, p. A32). We agree. We found about 90% of the women in our study perceived computer and IT careers as creative activities.

Women are underrepresented in CS/IT. But there are factors we can address individually and institutionally – assumptions about women in IT, the role of teachers, the role of fathers, the way we market computer science and IT. 

For references for the above cited studies, see Ballard, J., Scales, K., & Edwards, M. A.  (2006). Perceptions of information technology careers among women in career development transition. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 24 (2), 1-9.  

Image by FirmBee from https://pixabay.com/photos/office-business-accountant-620822/
Permission: https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved. Modified from earlier blog, March 2013.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. 
New: Now available in paperback.

How would you like the decision as to whether you receive a job offer to be decided by artificial intelligence? You may have already been impacted by employee selection AI, directly or indirectly, but may not have been aware of it. There is no doubt that AI is here and will only grow smarter and reach further into the operations of most organizations with time. 
 
Use of artificial intelligence and concerns about that use were common themes in symposia at this year’s meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In the exhibit hall vendors were demonstrating new AI applications, including use in personnel selection. I enjoy walking through poster sessions, seeing what new research is underway, talking with researchers. There was one poster on AI that I found particularly interesting.
 
Manuel Gonzalez (doctoral candidate, Baruch College & The Graduate Center, CUNY) and his colleagues from Aon Assessment Solutions tried to assess job applicants’ possible attitudes toward use of AI in hiring decisions. They had nearly 200 MTurk workers respond to hypothetical situations and a variety of self-report attitudinal measures. Decision-makers were human or AI. Here were some of their findings:

• “People generally react unfavorably toward AI and the organizations that use them for selection purposes”
• People were less likely to trust organizations that used AI in decision-making.
• People were less likely to promote organizations that used AI in decision-making except people who were very familiar with AI.
• Where AI made the decisions, people had less trust, saw as potentially less fair,  and had concerns about privacy and communications.

Gonzalez and colleagues suggested organizations:

• Emphasize interpersonal interactions in the selection process when using AI. 
• Explain how AI works and how it is used. 

My take-aways:
 
1. Our attitudes toward AI are evolving. Examining attitudes toward AI across many areas of application is smart. Gonzalez and colleagues are to be commended for their contribution. This should be a growing area for research.

2. It is a brave new world. AI can increase efficiencies and help make more effective decisions. Should AI be the deciding factor in personnel decisions? This question echoes Paul Meehl (1954) on the value of statistical prediction versus clinical prediction. Statistical will usually have superior outcomes. However Meehl made a caveat. The statistical prediction must be properly used. I think that is the issue with AI software. The devil is in the details. For example, is AI eliminating people from hiring consideration who might otherwise be good employees? Overheard in one session at the conference: “Perhaps we do not have a shortage of job applicants; perhaps AI is eliminated some good applicants.” Managers and leaders should be familiar with how their organizations use AI to advance objectives. 
 
3. So how do the faculty who teach AI make decisions in hiring new faculty? Do they use AI? My guess is they do it like most faculty usually do -- going through a stack of applicant folders, making decisions to narrow the field, thus producing a smaller pool. Then repeating the process until two or three candidates are invited to campus for job interviews and teaching demonstrations. Then taking a vote. 
 
4. Hiring new employees is one of the great opportunities to build and grow an organization. AI can make the process more efficient. Each organization, each leader, must decide how AI can help.
 
Gonzalez, M. F., Martin, N. R., Justenhoven, R., & Preuss, A. (2019, April). Rage against the machine: Reactions to artificial intelligence in selection systems. Poster session presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, National Harbor, MD. 

Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis, MN, US: University of Minnesota Press.
​
Image by geralt. Obtained from https://pixabay.com/illustrations/artificial-intelligence-brain-think-3382507/
Free to use. 

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. 
New: Now available in paperback. 

For those who follow my blogs for the translation of research studies into practical implications for the workplace, stay tuned. A time-out today to share impressions from a conference I just attended. 
 
The 2019 meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) at National Harbor, Maryland, has concluded. Over 5000 people attended. I joined SIOP in 1984 and have spent most of my work-life as a manager, consultant, and professor engaged in various aspects of I/O psychology, directly or indirectly. I attended meetings of SIOP occasionally and meetings of the Academy of Management (AOM) nearly every year. Here are a few of my impressions from this year’s conference, nothing empirical here, just impressions. 

1. The future of I/O psych is in good hands. It would be interested to know the median age of attendees. I talked with many junior PhDs, doctoral students, and doctoral candidates and was impressed with their knowledge and enthusiasm. Practitioner I/Os from businesses and government were active throughout the conference. It was exciting to see the large number of people who appeared to be early in their careers.
2. Increasingly women are choosing I/O psych for their profession. I would venture over half of the attendees were women which speaks volumes for SIOP and I/O programs. It was not that long ago that white men were most of the attendees. More women as I/O psychologists can only strengthen the field. The same with diversity.
3. The scientist-practitioner model, always at the core of I/O, continues to be fully embraced. Over the years though, a gap has grown between researchers and practitioners. Research is seen as increasingly less relevant with less impact on practice. SIOP is trying to help reduce that gap. This year for the first time 39 individuals received Scientist-Practitioner Presidential Recognition Awards. I am especially cognizant of this scholar-practitioner gap. Doing my small part to help reduce it has been the function of my tweets, these blogs, and my book, Decoding the Workplace.   
4. AI has arrived. In one session people were genuinely excited by the possibilities of artificial intelligence, “Every behavioral scientist should be involved in AI.” In another session presenters called for more caution: “Expediency and efficiency crush privacy every time.” Meanwhile in the exhibit hall, businesses offered their latest AI innovations for Human Resources and I/O professionals. 
5. It seemed the pendulum has swung more toward industrial-personnel with less organizational psychology. I had expected more of 50/50 mix. The organizational psychology side is more prevalent in AOM, especially in the OB Division. There was a time when I though I/O psychologists educated in schools of psychology were superior in knowledge to organizational behaviorists educated in business schools. Wrong. We read and publish in the same journals and research mostly the same issues. 
6. Not as many DOD industrial psychologists present. In earlier years I/O psychologists associated with the military, especially personnel testing, were much in evidence at SIOP. Not as much these days. Mostly a few contractors. 
7. Symposia and posters seemed oriented more toward conceptual and technical issues. In several more I/O “in practice” sessions, cases and ideas were discussed with attendee participation. The discussions suggested the AOM workshop model might be applicable to SIOP. AOM has several days of workshops followed by the scholarly presentations. There are a lot more lessons learned that could be shared and discussed through workshops.  
8. One of the joys for me was meeting people I have only known through social media. For example, the I/O community on Twitter is robust. Meeting people with whom we exchange ideas online will make our online discussions even better. 

 
Last, it must be said that one vender in the exhibit hall shared cake with people walking by. I had a piece of chocolate cake and was amazed. It melted in my mouth, easily the best chocolate cake I ever had. Thank you Gaylord National pastry chef!
 
Image by endlesswatts. Obtained from https://pixabay.com/photos/chocolate-cake-dessert-food-1185815/
Free to use. 

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018.