Search

Competence development in digital technologies, analytics, and artificial intelligence is increasingly important to all types of organizations and their workforce. Universities and corporations are investing heavily in developing training programs, at all tenure levels, to meet the new skills needs. However, there is a risk that the new set of lucrative opportunities for employees in these tech-heavy fields will be biased against diverse demographic groups like women. Although much research has examined the experiences of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and occupations, less understood is the extent to which gender stereotypes influence recruiters' perceptions and evaluations of individuals who are deciding whether to apply to STEM training programs. These behaviors are typically unobserved because they occur prior to the application interface. We address this question by investigating recruiters' initial outreach decisions to more than 166,000 prospective students who have expressed interest in applying to a midcareer level online tech training program in business analytics. Using data on the recruiters' communications, our results indicate that recruiters are less likely to initiate contact with female than male prospects and search for additional signals of quality from female prospects before contacting them. We also find evidence that recruiters are more likely to base initial outreach activities on prospect gender when they have higher workloads and limited attention. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this research for our understanding of how screening and selection decisions prior to the application interface may undermine organizational efforts to achieve gender equality and diversity as well as the potential for demand-side interventions to mitigate these gender disparities. Funding: We gratefully acknowledge Harvard Business School and MIT Sloan School of Management for generously funding this work. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16499. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the need for theoretical advancements in understanding team processes and the impact of technology on teams. Specifically, it examines the use of digital collaboration technologies by organizational teams and their effect on team communication and collaboration. Using the concept of affordances as a theoretical lens, the paper explores the potential relationships between technology affordances and essential team processes. It also provides an agenda for future research on social technologies and teams as well as novel methodological approaches for better understanding the ways in which digital technologies are affecting team processes and performance in the workplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Summary: We investigate how knowledge similarity between two individuals is systematically related to the likelihood that a serendipitous encounter results in knowledge production. We conduct a field experiment at a medical research symposium, where we exogenously varied opportunities for face‐to‐face encounters among 15,817 scientist‐pairs. Our data include direct observations of interaction patterns collected using sociometric badges, and detailed, longitudinal data of the scientists' postsymposium publication records over 6 years. We find that interacting scientists acquire more knowledge and coauthor 1.2 more papers when they share some overlapping interests, but cite each other's work between three and seven times less when they are from the same field. Our findings reveal both collaborative and competitive effects of knowledge similarity on knowledge production outcomes. Managerial Summary: Managers often try to stimulate innovation by encouraging serendipitous interactions between employees, for example by using office space redesigns, conferences and similar events. Are such interventions effective? This article proposes that an effective encounter depends on the degree of common knowledge shared by the individuals. We find that scientists who attend the same conference are more likely to learn from each other and collaborate effectively when they have some common interests, but may view each other competitively when they work in the same field. Hence, when designing opportunities for face‐to‐face interactions, managers should consider knowledge similarity as a criteria for fostering more productive exchanges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7gCUtYb0dQ [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]