To the extent that women do not choose CS because of troubling aspects of culture that could be changed, we must ask ourselves whether we ought to push for more women in CS, for instance, through educational policy. Since CS is a desirable professional field, women might benefit by enhanced opportunities to take part. Furthermore, insofar as CS is a key area for global competition, it may be beneficial for CS to become more gender-inclusive. Diversity may improve the products of computer and software teams.

Ultimately, however, the issue might go beyond any immediately measurable benefit. The inadequacies of the research at hand might actually suggest that we need to think within a different frame of mind: one that recognizes possible biological differences and a broad range of culturally determined qualities as key elements of a complex equation.

First, let us address the potential benefits to women of participating in CS. First, IT jobs pay considerably more than most female-dominated occupations [Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004]; [National Center for Education Statistics 2008]. According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, starting salary offers for graduates with a bachelor’s degree in computer science averaged $61,407 in July 2009 [Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010]. For computer systems software engineers, the median annual wages in the industries employing the largest numbers in May 2008 were: scientific research and development services, $102,090; computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing, $101,270; software publishers, $93,5790; and computer systems design and related services, $91,610.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies computer software engineers’ prospects of landing a job as excellent. Projecting ahead from 2008 to 2018, the percentage change projections as indicated on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website are: computer software engineers and computer programmers show an increase of 283,000 jobs, representing a 21% increase; computer software engineers show an increase in 295,000 jobs, representing a 32% increase; and computer software engineers show an increase of 34%. The only decline in projected jobs occurs in computer programming, at 3%. Thus, CS is a burgeoning field, with good pay and good job prospects.

Compared to other STEM occupations, the computer industry will see the greatest percentage of growth and demand, projected to 2016 (Figure 13-2).

Technology job opportunities are predicted to grow at a faster rate than jobs in all other professional sectors, up to 25% over the next decade [Ashcraft and Blithe 2009]. Considering the huge demand and projected employment to 2018, it might not be optimal that a possibly male-focused work culture may prevent some women from reaping the benefits of a career in CS.

The financial benefits to women of greater participation in CS are clear, but beyond these are the benefits that might accrue across the board when women are enabled to participate in all professional fields, including CS. The United States needs competent people to fill computer-related jobs and do them well. The United States Department of Labor estimates that by 2016 there will be more than 1.5 million computer-related jobs available [Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004].

Figure 13-2. Projected percent change, STEM occupations 2006–2016

Despite the technology industry being one of the fastest growing industries in the U.S., if current trends continue, by 2016 the technology industry will be able to fill only half of its available jobs with candidates holding computer science bachelor’s degrees from U.S. universities [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004]. In other words, we will benefit from participation by all people who show promise and capability, of both sexes.

Beyond this, gender balance might provide some benefits that some people have attributed to diversity. Indeed, some scholars have advanced the notion that diversity—including gender diversity—improves team performance, though not all scholars agree with this assertion, which frequently is made more on sociopolitical grounds than on scholarly ones. Research oriented around self-categorization/social identity and similarity-attraction tends to result in a pessimistic view of diversity, whereas the information-processing approach tends to give rise to more optimistic outcomes. As Mannix and Neale explain [Mannix and Neale 2005]:

Page, an advocate of diversity, says that under the right conditions, teams comprising diverse members consistently outperform teams comprising “highest-ability” members [Page 2007]. From his extensive work in complex systems, economics, and political science, Page asserts that progress depends as much on our collective differences as it does our individual IQ scores.

The research on the benefits of diversity in the IT workplace suggests that teams with equal numbers of women and men are more likely (than teams of any other composition) to experiment, be creative, share knowledge, and fulfill tasks [London Business School 2007], and that teams comprising women and men produce IT patents that are cited 26–42% more often than the norm for similar types of patents [Ashcraft and Breitzman 2007].

Research on this topic often credits diversity with a myriad of positive outcomes for team performance, yet it must be acknowledged that 50 years of research by social scientists has shown that performance advantages are not so clear-cut. As Mannix and Neale [2005] point out, whereas tenure diversity (diversity in employee length of service) has particularly negative effects on performance, diversity based on social-category variables such as age, sex, and race seems to produce mixed effects, and the effect particularly depends on proportions (ratios of minority to majority members). In a large-scale, four-study project in which the authors measured the effects of racial and gender diversity on team process and performance, Kochan and colleagues found that gender diversity had either no effect or positive effects on team process, whereas racial diversity tended to have negative effects [Kochan et al. 2003]. Although Kochan and colleagues reported few direct effects for either type of diversity on team performance, they did indicate that contextual conditions (such as high competition among teams) exacerbated racial diversity’s negative effects on performance.

Interestingly, Sackett and colleagues pose the question of how, exactly, performance is being assessed throughout the literature evaluating the benefits of diversity [Sackett et al. 1991]. That is, the authors note that performance ratings are tricky. After controlling for differences in male-female cognitive ability, psychomotor ability, education, and experience, when the proportion of women was small, women received lower performance ratings. Sackett and colleagues found that when women formed less than 20% of a group, they received lower performance ratings than did men, but when their proportion was greater than 50%, they were rated higher than the men. The authors did not find any parallel effects of proportion of representation on the performance ratings of men. Because the sex of the rater was not recorded, other potentially plausible explanations, including fear of class-action lawsuits or claims of discrimination, are difficult to evaluate.

In other words, researchers may lack credible measures for valuing gender diversity, at least with respect to performance. Does proportion truly enhance performance, or is there some other underlying factor giving the perception of enhanced performance? How can overt diversity (male/female, black/white) be studied while also appropriately assessing values and attitudes for similarities and differences? Would a gender- or ethnically-diverse work group whose members share similar attitudes and values be considered homogeneous or heterogeneous? Clearly, parameters need to be defined, and creating valid measures is part of the difficulty for research in this area.

Amidst these confusions, the fact that potential benefits of a diverse workforce may also include financial rewards is worth noting. A 2006 Catalyst study found higher average financial performance for companies with a higher representation of female board members. The study claims that for return on equity, sales, and invested capital, companies with the highest percentages of women board members outperformed those with the least by 53, 42, and 66%, respectively [Joy and Carter 2007]. Previously, a 2004 Catalyst study indicated that companies with the highest percentage of women leaders experienced a 35.1% higher return on equity and a 34% higher total return to shareholders. However, it could be argued that these results stem from progressive attitudes, not gender per se. Furthermore, Adams and Ferreira found that the average effect of gender diversity on both market valuation and operating performance was negative [Adams and Ferreira 2008]. This negative effect, they explain, may be driven by companies with greater shareholder rights. In firms with weaker shareholder rights, gender diversity has positive effects. Therefore, given the Catalyst researchers’ inability to control for variables such as business attitudes and shareholder involvement, we need to question their “face-value” conclusions.

Of additional concern should be politically forced and mandated measures creating gender diversity on boards. In 2003, the Norwegian Parliament passed a law requiring all public limited firms to have at least 40% women on their boards. Since then, researchers from the University of Michigan have investigated the consequences of this law. Ahern and Dittmar found negative impacts on firm value; however, they are quick to point out that the value loss was not caused by the sex of the new board members, but rather by their younger age and lack of high-level work experience [Ahern and Dittmar 2009]. Forcing gender diversity on boards for the sake of social equity produces inexperienced boards that can be detrimental to the value of individual companies, at least for the short run. What remains to be seen are the long-term consequences of such mandates.

Finally, some have argued that a diverse workforce fosters innovation. Overall patenting in all IT subcategories grew substantially between 1980 and 2005, but U.S. female patenting grew even more dramatically. All U.S. IT patenting for both genders combined grew from 32,000-plus patents in the period from 1980–1985 to 176,000-plus patents—a five-fold increase [Ashcraft and Blithe 2009]. For the same period, U.S. female IT patenting grew from 707 patents to more than 10,000—a 14-fold increase. This is particularly noteworthy because the percentage of women employed in IT remained relatively flat [Ashcraft and Blithe 2009]. Also, because women influence 80% of consumer spending decisions, and yet 90% of technology products and services are designed by men, there is a potential untapped market representing women’s product needs [Harris and Raskino 2007]. Including women in the technological design process may mean more competitive products in the marketplace.

W. A. Wulf, the president of the National Academy of Engineering, notes one perspective on diversity: “Without diversity, we limit the set of life experiences that are applied, and as a result, we pay an opportunity cost—a cost in products not built, in designs not considered, in constraints not understood, and in processes not invented.” On the other hand, concerning the research on diversity, Thomas A. Kochan, MIT Professor of Management and Engineering Systems, has said: “The diversity industry is built on sand. The business case rhetoric for diversity is simply naïve and overdone. There are no strong positive or negative effects of gender or racial diversity on business performance.” Kochan does, however, acknowledge, “there is a strong social case for why we should be promoting diversity in all our organizations and over time as the labor market becomes more diverse, organizations will absolutely need to build these capabilities to stay effective” [Kochan 2010]. The most parsimonious current summary is that there may be some benefits of gender diversity, but that there may be costs as well.