PAPERS An Exploratory Study of Gender in
Project Management: Interrelationships
With Role, Location, Technology, and
Project Cost
Linda S. Henderson, School of Business and Professional Studies, University of
San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
Richard W. Stackman, School of Business and Professional Studies, University of
San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
ABSTRACT ■
This study explores whether gender differences
in project managers are related to gender differ-
ences in their team members. Gender differ-
ences are explored in the context of project
managers’ and team members’ location to one
another, the project team’s use of technology,
and the cost and size of the project teams.
Using log-linear analysis of 563 project team
members’ responses, several significant find-
ings are reported—including the likelihood of
same-gender project manager and team member
dyads as well as gender differences in project
contextual factors. Implications for organiza-
tional and project management researchers
and decision makers conclude the article.
KEYWORDS: communication competency;
project team satisfaction; project team
productivity; virtuality; geographic dispersion;
technology-mediated communication
Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 5, 37–55
© 2010 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20175
INTRODUCTION ■
omen are taking on more roles in project management
W (Neuhauser, 2007), yet the field is still considered to be male-
dominated (Mulenburg, 2002). The number of gender studies in
the project management literature are relatively small, a state
reflective of a historical trend in the organizational literature. As Martin (2000)
stated, “within organizational studies, research on gender has consistently
been marginalized or ignored, and most mainstream scholarship continues
to be presented as if theories and data were gender-neutral” (p. 207). Over the
past decade, the type and frequency of gender studies in the management
and organizational literatures have increased (e.g., Bartol, Martin, &
Kromkowski, 2003; Charlesworth & Baird, 2007; Timberlake, 2005), yet a gap
still exists within the project management literature. More recent research in
project management has focused on gender-related issues, assumptions, and
dynamics that are endemic to the profession (e.g., Lindgren & Packendorff,
2006; Thomas & Buckle-Henning, 2007). To date, however, no studies have
been conducted that consider differences and relationships between gender
and important contextual factors in managing contemporary projects.
The purpose of our study is to contribute to the literature of gender
research in project management in order to understand better the project
context and relationships within which gender differences occur. Our goal is
especially important and timely with the rise of project management as a
critical part of our modern organizations and the economy (Lee-Kelley,
2002). Specifically, we explore whether gender differences in project man-
agers are related to gender differences in team members. We explore these
differences in the context of project managers’ and team members’ location
to one another, their use of technology, and the cost and size of their identi-
fied projects. Using log-linear analysis of 563 project team members’
responses to a survey administered through the website Chief Project Officer
(www.chiefprojectofficer.com), we report several significant findings. In par-
ticular, we report the odds ratios for female and male project managers and
team members in relationship to one another as well as in relationship to
differences in the project contextual factors. We also report unexpected dif-
ferences between gender and team members’ ages and functional special-
ization in information technology. Several implications for organizational
and project management researchers and decision makers are discussed,
December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 37
 An Exploratory Study of Gender in Project Management
PAPERS
which encourage future changes in the
gender imbalance of project manage-
ment research and practice.
Literature Review
Gender
In the past decade, a number of gender-
related review articles have been pub-
lished that focused on gender differences
with respect to inequality in employ-
ment and work organizations (Mills,
2003; Reskin, 2000; van der Lippe & van
Dijk, 2002), human capital investment
and its effect on authority and power
relationships (Smith, 2002; Stewart &
McDermott, 2004), and the impact of
stereotypes and overcoming stereo-
types (Rudman & Phelan, 2008).
Although none of the articles specifical-
ly address gender and project manage-
ment, they do highlight that there is still
much to be learned about personal and
structural characteristics and how
these characteristics interact in creat-
ing different outcomes (e.g., future
earnings capacity, status, and career
advancement) between men and
women. Each article overtly states, or at
least implies, that gender does matter
at work.
Asymmetrical experiences in the
workplace—including project teams—
for women regarding experience and
knowledge gained can result in differen-
tial outcomes or catch-22 situations.
Smith (2002) notes that differential
investments in education, work experi-
ence, training, and hours worked
appear to enhance authority changes
for both men and women, but men
seemingly enjoy a higher return than
women. And while project teams may
provide an ideal situation for women to
demonstrate their competence and
capabilities, Rudman and Phelan (2008)
argue that women must disconfirm
female stereotypes in order to be con-
sidered competent leaders even though
they face negative perceptions for
appearing too ambitious and self-
promoting. Clearly, experience within
project teams is also important to
38 December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
human and social capital development.
Studies of gender in project-based
work started to appear in the literature
almost 15 years ago (e.g., Gale &
Cartwright, 1995). Although small in
number within the project management
academic literature, this emergence of
interest in gender corresponds to the
high growth rate of the project manage-
ment profession in the workplace. In
2009, the Project Management Institute
(PMI), the major professional associa-
tion in the field, reports over 500,000
members and credential holders world-
wide (Project Management Institute,
2009). According to PMI’s 2008
Membership Satisfaction Study, the gen-
der breakdown of membership is 70%
male and 30% female. In addition, in
the results of PMI’s 2008 Pulse of the
Professional Survey, 32% of Project
Management Professionals (PMPs®) are
female and 68% male.1 Historically, proj-
ect management has been a male-
dominated discipline, and the relative
absence of gender-related studies
reflects this dominance (Mulenburg,
2002); however, there is a greater num-
ber of women who are taking on roles in
managing and participating on project
teams (Neuhauser, 2007). The establish-
ment of the Women in Project Manage-
ment Special Interest Group within the
Project Management Institute attests to
this gender-role shift.
According to Gale and Cartwright
(1995), women have been underrepre-
sented in traditional project-based
industries such as construction and
engineering just as they have been
underrepresented in the general man-
agement arena. The current breakdown
for the top five project management
industries is 93.5% male and 6.5%
female in construction, 71% male and
29% female in consulting, 52.1% male
and 47.9% female in financial services,
68.7% male and 31.3% female in infor-
mation technology, and 73.4% male and
1Data provided by Jennifer McCaffrey, Market Research
Supervisor, PMI, August 2009.
2Custom study for PMI by Mediamark Research and
Intelligence, LLC, July 2009.
26.6% female in telecommunications.2
Gale and Cartwright (1995) isolated how
women have encountered more prob-
lems than males gaining entry and
acceptance in the project environments
of industries that are seen as “masculine”
in orientation. They further contend
that since the culture of project-based
industries is inherently masculine in ori-
entation, a culture change will not neces-
sarily occur merely as a result of an
increase in the critical mass of women
entering this environment (Gale &
Cartwright, 1995).
While many researchers view the
complexity of gender inequality as
embedded within organizational cul-
tures, Martin (2008) maintains that
when numbers are few, women have
predictable problems such as “height-
ened visibility, performance feedback
skewed too positive or too negative,
[and] slow promotions and inequitable
pay” (p. 12). To reduce these problems,
the number of women must increase to
40% to reach a tipping point where
morale and performance soar (Martin,
2008). This tipping point is supported
by Ely’s (1994) earlier research that
showed a reduction in negative percep-
tions of women when they occupy
more than 15% of the organization’s
leadership roles.
From a cultural perspective, Buckle
and Thomas (2003) and Thomas and
Buckle-Henning (2007) explicated
and differentiated masculine and femi-
nine logic systems in an effort to better
understand how they are embedded in
the project management profession
itself and how practicing project man-
agers view this distinction and rele-
vance to their work. These researchers
used the concepts of masculinity and
femininity in reference to different ways
of knowing and behaving, not necessar-
ily to differences between males and
females. In their first study, Buckle and
Thomas (2003) examined the implicit
gender assumptions within the Project
Management Institute’s A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK ® Guide), which provides:
 a common language for project
managers and common standards of
project management quality, excel-
lence, and professionalism. As a
documented standard of how proj-
ect managers ought to construct and
define their success, PMBOK pro-
vides powerful messages about legit-
imate ways of thinking and behaving
(2008, p. 434).
Using the literary device of decon-
struction and a qualitative text analysis
of the PMBOK ® Guide, Buckle and
Thomas (2003) found “that masculine
concepts and conceptions exert a far
more direct influence over how the con-
tent of project management practices are
defined than do the feminine ones”
(Lindgren & Packendorff, 2006, p. 843).
Buckle and Thomas added, “Masculine
sense making tends to value indepen-
dence, self-sufficiency, separation,
power deriving from hierarchical author-
ity, competitiveness, and analytical and
impersonal problem solving” (2003,
p. 434). However, in a subsequent study
of practicing project managers, Thomas
and Buckle-Henning (2007) found both
masculine and feminine logic systems to
be crucial in the thinking and behavior of
successful project managers. Buckle and
Thomas noted, “Feminine sense making
involves placing primacy on one’s con-
nection with others. Such individuals
value sharing power and information,
prize democratic or participative decision-
making, and tend to create cooperative
work settings” (2003, p. 435). Both the
male and female project managers inter-
viewed in their study exhibited “sophisti-
cated skill in balancing masculine and
feminine cognitive styles and attribute
their success to ‘dancing in the white
spaces’ between the lines laid out by the
PMBOK” (p. 552).
Thomas and Buckle-Henning’s
(2007) findings offer insight for earlier
research that showed no statistical dif-
ference in the use of influence strate-
gies between female and male project
managers (Bohlen, Lee, & Sweeney,
1998; Lee & Bohlen, 1997). Only minor
differences due to gender were found
(Lee & Sweeney, 2001). In particular,
female project managers appeared to
explain their reasoning and rationale
for requests more frequently than
male project managers. They reported
female project managers as not threaten-
ing to give team members unsatisfactory
performance appraisals as frequently as
male project managers, and frequently
obtaining advance support from higher
management to back up their requests
(Lee & Sweeney, 2001). Research by
Richmond and Skitmore (2006) also
showed minor overall differences
between female and male project man-
agers in how they coped with stress.
Female project managers identified
work overload and uncertainty as
sources of stress, whereas male project
managers identified delegation and
interpersonal conflict.
In contrast, Lindgren and
Packendorff (2006) conducted an
in-depth narrative study of individuals
on the same project team in order to
understand how project work reflects
ongoing patterns of femininity and
masculinity in society. Their research
showed how project team members’
acceptance of demands on cost and
time efficiency, to the exclusion of other
relevant work and life concerns, perpet-
uates the masculinization of project
work practices. Lindgren and
Packendorff noted, “It is often a mas-
culinization hidden behind seemingly
‘feminine’ rhetoric on equality and flex-
ibility, rhetoric that redirects attention
from collectives to individuals and pre-
sumes real equality instead of differ-
ences” (2006, p. 863). Indeed, in a case
study of an all-female core project
team, Styhe, Backman, and Borjesson
(2005) found that these women, all
automotive engineers and designers,
initiated and accepted authority to
develop a concept car aimed at the
needs and desires of independent, pro-
fessional women. Their project led to a
successful presentation at a major car
show and was seen as an extraordinary
event in which dominant social prac-
tices were “turned upside down for a
December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 39
short period” (p. 100). The researchers
surmised that the project was “regarded
both as a means, [though] unintention-
al, for reproduction of gendered organi-
zational practices and as a first step
towards less male-centered organiza-
tional practices [especially in the male-
dominated auto industry]” (Styhe et al.,
2005, p. 104).
In summary, the current research
literature on gender in project manage-
ment has substantiated the historical
male dominance of this professional
discipline and points toward a signifi-
cant need for researchers to examine
gender differences in the context of
variables important to successful proj-
ect management. According to
Lindgren and Packendorff (2006), the
specific need is to research gender
in terms of “the individuals’ situation in
the workplace” (p. 862). The central sit-
uation for better understanding gender
differences in project management lies
with the roles that individuals assume
on project teams.
Roles
Contemporary project management
relies on team-based structures to
accomplish collective work efforts.
These structures emanate from the
complexity of specialized and often dis-
tributed knowledge workers who are
required to accomplish project goals
across industries and global contexts.
In addition, project work often exists in
dynamic organizational and market-
place environments that place a premi-
um on project teams who can adapt
quickly and creatively to the uncertainty
and ambiguity that affect the well-
known triple constraints of time,
resources, and outcome. The roles that
team members take in managing proj-
ects are an important dimension
for analyzing contextual factors in the
management of projects and teams
(Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Two roles in
particular are critical in this regard: proj-
ect manager and core team member.
Project managers are responsible
for directing the efforts of a project team
 An Exploratory Study of Gender in Project Management
PAPERS
to define the scope, create a plan to
accomplish the scope requirements,
and successfully implement the plan on
time, within budget, and at the expected
level of quality (Knutson, 2001). Project
managers also significantly influence
the creation of a positive, highly moti-
vated project environment (Schmid &
Adams, 2008). The role of core team
member has become inculcated within
the project management profession and
used not only with primary projects, but
also with vendors and other outside
stakeholders (Graham, 2000). Reich
(2007) found that project success relies
upon the maintenance of core team
member composition throughout a
project, which is also the key success
factor in ongoing alliances between
operating and engineering companies
(Zhang & Flynn, 2003). According to
McDonough and Spital (2003), core
teams are important in effectively man-
aging project portfolios having high
uncertainty. Equally important are core
team members’ judgments in accom-
plishing a successful project risk analy-
sis (Chapman, 1998), managing knowl-
edge (Eppler & Sukowski, 2000), and
facilitating networks (Hutt, Stafford,
Walker, & Reingen, 2000).
Grabher (2004) described core
teams as an essential element of project
ecologies. In this sense, their function
and impact are not only relevant to the
practice of project management, but
also may reflect cultural norms of their
larger organizational environments.
Core team membership is not necessar-
ily part of defined hierarchical positions
and structures since their composition
usually occurs within matrix or flat
organizational structures (Lindgren &
Packendorff, 2006). Yet their composi-
tion may represent role incongruity in
regard to gender. For example, Rudman
and Phelan (2008) identify research that
shows general work roles as more segre-
gated and gender-stereotyped for
women when men are disproportion-
ately represented in positions of author-
ity. The larger number of male versus
female PMP® credential holders in the
40 December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Project Management Institute (68% to
32%, respectively) suggests that females
may experience less participation and
greater role incongruity than males in
both project manager and core team
member roles. Role incongruity for
female project managers can also repre-
sent status incongruity between the
more influential role of project manager
(as opposed to core team member) and
their lower citizenry status compared
with men (Rudman & Phelan, 2008).
This type of incongruity can diminish
the status women have earned based on
their achievements (Berger, Webster,
Ridgeway, & Rosenholtz, 1986). The
implications of these findings have sig-
nificance not just for roles, but also for
two other project contextual factors:
location and technology.
Location and Technology
The rapid growth of project management
over the past two decades has paralleled
the information technology explosion
and, in particular, the legitimization of
virtual work in which project team mem-
bers are commonly located at a geo-
graphical distance from one another.
Working virtually requires reliance upon
technology-mediated communication to
accomplish project planning and imple-
mentation. Gibson and Cohen (2003) use
the term virtuality to describe the con-
tinuum upon which teams may exist in
terms of their dependence on technolo-
gy-mediated communication and degree
of dispersion.
A dearth of research exists that exam-
ines gender in virtual team environ-
ments. However, the existing research
does suggest that virtuality may obviate
particular gender dynamics found in
larger organizational settings. For
example, females report higher trust
than males (Furumo & Pearson, 2007)
and greater satisfaction in general
(Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004),
even on female-only virtual teams
(Savicki, Kelley, & Lingenfelter, 1996). In
terms of communication on virtual
teams, males are less able to dominate
team interaction (Furumo & Pearson,
2007), self-disclose less, and send
shorter messages than female-only
or mixed-gender virtual teams (Savicki
et al., 1996). Cortesi (2001) found that
males tend to talk more than females
when using audio conferencing tech-
nologies. It also appears that virtual
team members pay less attention to the
in-group/out-group differences evinced
by gender when they work virtually as
opposed to face-to-face (Martins et al.,
2004). The complexity resulting from
dependence and dispersion has also
played a role in several gender-neutral
studies on the costs and benefits of vir-
tual project teams. For example,
researchers at Intel found that the geo-
graphic dispersion of over 1,000 project
team members did not appear to sig-
nificantly detract from overall team
performance (Lu, Watson-Manheim,
Chudoba, & Wynn, 2006). However,
these researchers did find that overuse
of different communication technolo-
gies across different team environments
did reduce performance. Lee-Kelley
(2006) found that project team mem-
bers who work virtually experience a
“distinct feeling of discomfort and
unease” (p. 240), especially when other
team members are part of different
organizations.
From the perspective of different
functional workgroups, Van den Bulte
and Moenaert (1998) found that team
communication is enhanced in some
functional groups when they are
colocated (e.g., R&D), yet negligibly
altered for others when working virtually
(e.g., marketing). Along the same lines,
research by Patti, Gilbert, and Hartman
(1997) of product development projects
in 82 firms showed that the schedule per-
formance and product quality signifi-
cantly benefited when team members
were colocated. Sharifi and Pawar
(2002) found that project team members
perceived co-location to be a better con-
text for team development, yet viewed
their virtual performance as influenced
more by effective team management.
As previously suggested, the degree
of virtuality no doubt influences the
nature and quality of communication
among project team members.
DeSanctis and Monge (1998), in their
review of research on technology-
mediated communication, found that
message bias can decrease, but under-
standing and comprehension can
increase. In addition, an individual’s
ability to form interpersonal impres-
sions and build relationships takes
longer because these communication
attributes generally require interac-
tions over time to make sense of social
cues (Walther, 1993).
More recently, Henderson (2008)
found a positive relationship between
geographic dispersion of the project
team and the team members’ percep-
tions of their respective project man-
agers’ ability to decode communication.
In addition, there was a positive associ-
ation between geographic dispersion
and team member satisfaction when
project team members colocate with
their project manager. Geographic dis-
persion also operated as a double-
edged sword in that it was negatively
related to team members’ perceptions
of their team’s productivity even when
team members who were colocated
with their project managers perceived
them (project managers) to be compe-
tent communicators. In other words, the
co-location of respondents with their
respective project managers may pro-
duce sufficient interactions for team
members to feel satisfied with their
work on the project, but not necessarily
clear and/or confident about the pro-
ductivity of their geographically dis-
persed team (Henderson, 2008).
Given the paucity of research con-
cerning gender in virtual project teams
and the importance of this contextual
structure in project management, the
present study seeks to shed light on
gender differences between project
managers and core team members who
are colocated or dispersed. In addition,
the present study explores these differ-
ences when project teams are dispersed
and reliant on technology-mediated
communication.
Project Cost
Historically, project cost constitutes
one of the triple constraints—schedule,
cost, quality—in project management
and is often the most critical in terms of
measuring project success. Managing
project cost is a fundamental responsi-
bility of project managers, and it is one
aspect to which project managers are
held accountable. According to Smith
(2002), control over monetary resources
such as project cost has different gen-
der implications for women and men in
the workplace. Smith writes, “Men
receive twice the economic payoff that
women receive for possessing authority
that allows them to control monetary
resources even when gender differ-
ences in education and experience are
considered” (2002, p. 534). Men draw
this economic payoff primarily from
having greater numbers in positions of
authority where controls over monetary
resources generate larger income than
for women.
Notwithstanding the overall state of
gender inequity in managing monetary
resources, project cost can entail sever-
al subprocesses that have implications
for their inherent masculine orienta-
tion (Buckle & Thomas, 2003). Subpro-
cesses can entail estimating, budgeting,
accounting, monitoring and tracking,
controlling variances, taking corrective
actions, and generating overall perfor-
mance metrics of earned value and/or
return on investment (Dinsmore &
Cabanis-Brewin, 2006). In addition,
some or all of these subprocesses
require coordination in their use
according to the particular phase of a
project—from initiation to planning
through implementation and finally
closeout. According to Kuehn (2006), in
her recent book on integrated cost and
schedule control, the various sub-
processes of project costing and coordi-
nation need to allow for flexibility to
scale costs to match changing condi-
tions (for example, customer or spon-
sor scope changes, unavailability of key
resources, etc.). Yang, O’Connor, and
Wang (2006) researched another impor-
December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 41
tant subprocess connected to project
costing: levels of technology usage. In
their study of 209 capital facility proj-
ects, they found significant relation-
ships between the cost of medium and
small projects, the technology used on
these projects and project success. The
cost of small-sized projects was $5 mil-
lion or less; medium-sized projects
cost between $5 million and $50 mil-
lion. Their research supports a strong
relationship between project cost,
technology usage, and ultimate project
success.
Kuehn (2006) also encapsulates the
area of risk within project cost estimat-
ing and comprehensive mitigation
strategies—a conceptual and practical
framework advocated by many theo-
rists and practitioners in the field.
Buckle and Thomas (2003) have shown
that the project management profes-
sion as demonstrated in the PMBOK
“reveals a strongly masculine orienta-
tion to issues of risk . . . describing how
uncertainties (i.e., risks) ought to be
identified, structured, and controlled
through various tactics or methodolo-
gies, budgets, and reporting” (p. 438).
Though Buckle and Thomas (2003) do
not dispute the obvious responsibility
that project managers have to mini-
mize project cost through risk manage-
ment practice, they do call into question
what is lost with an overreliance on
masculine logic systems in risk man-
agement and project cost control. Such
practice may “prevent new information
from influencing project processes or
desired outcomes [and] creativity from
entering the project life cycle” (p. 439).
This prevention in turn can exacerbate
risk and cost problems since the major
sources of risk in “complex projects
come from changes that are externally
imposed and difficult, sometimes
impossible, to predict in advance”
(Remington & Pollack, 2007, p. 69).
The catch-22 for many project
managers regarding project cost lies in
the distinction between their responsi-
bility and accountability for managing
these costs, often without the formal
 An Exploratory Study of Gender in Project Management
PAPERS
organizational authority to determine
or allocate them. According to Cohen
and Bradford (2005), influence requires
a number of cognitive, behavioral, and
interpersonal approaches, ones that
project managers need in varying
degrees to determine and manage proj-
ect costs. These approaches include
assuming that all stakeholders are
potential allies as opposed to competi-
tors, clarifying goals and priorities,
diagnosing the world of the other per-
son (e.g., functional managers, cus-
tomers, sponsor, stakeholders, vendors,
etc.), dealing with relationships, and
influencing through give and take. In
other words, managing project cost
does not solely rely on financial and
budgetary knowledge and control, but
depends as well on a project manager’s
influence skills. Most often, project
managers are not heads of divisions/
departments, nor members of senior
management teams, yet are responsi-
ble for delivering the project outcomes
(products or services) within financial
constraints typically imposed on
them by senior management (Sahdev,
Vinnicombe, & Tyson, 1999). As Thomas
and Buckle-Henning (2007) found, proj-
ect managers need a balance of mascu-
line and feminine logic systems and
sense making to discern and influence
issues of risk and cost-effectiveness.
Team Size
A corollary to project cost in determin-
ing the size of a project is the size of the
project team. Team size is a common
constraint encountered by project
managers. In her study of project lead-
ers in 17 clinical research organiza-
tions, Lee-Kelley (2002) found that
“team size can exert significant influ-
ences on the project leader’s perception
of control, which in turn is likely to
affect his/her view of the apparent diffi-
culty of certain project objectives”
(p. 475). Borrowing from Brooks (1978)
and his well-known The Mythical Man-
Month, communication overhead can
increase exponentially as team size
increases, which leads to the reality that
42 December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
adding more people to a late project
only makes it later. Perhaps this
explains why Ali, Anbarri, and Money
(2008) recently found that the size of a
project team has no relationship with
its use of project management software
ideally intended to better manage the
project.
Conversely, if team size increases
with people who have the right expertise
to fit immediate demands, there may be
no negative impact on a project sched-
ule. In a study of field data from 200 soft-
ware development projects across 10
industries, Pendharkar and Rodger
(2007) found that increases in team size
do not increase the software develop-
ment effort and even decrease this effort
when particular coding languages are
used. However, increases in team size
can increase effort with the use of partic-
ular tools and lower-quality data.
Like much of the gender-neutral
research previously discussed under
“Location and Technology,” there is lit-
tle known about how gender differences
between project managers and team
members relate to this all-important
contextual factor of team size. There
may indeed be significant interactions
between gender and team size that,
heretofore, have not only been over-
looked in the literature, but also may
shed new light on the role gender plays
in the influence of team size.
Research Questions
Based on the previous literature review,
we explore the following research ques-
tions in the remainder of this article.
• What are the relationships among the
project contextual factors of roles,
location, technology, cost, and size?
• Do gender differences exist between
project team members and these con-
textual factors?
• Do gender differences exist between
project managers and these contextu-
al factors?
• What are the differences and interre-
lationships among project team
members and project managers with
respect to project contextual factors?
Methodology
To explore gender differences and their
interrelationships with project contex-
tual factors, we analyzed particular
items and scales from questionnaire
data of project team members in a larg-
er, ongoing study of project communi-
cation and network relationships. The
questionnaire was made available to
participants through an Internet survey
company. We composed a letter that
introduced the general parameters of
our study and requested the readers’
participation through a URL link pro-
vided in the letter. A second company,
which owned the subscriber list to the
original U.S.-based website Chief
Project Officer (now Projects at Work),
then e-mailed our letter to 4,998
subscriber e-mail addresses on three
separate occasions over a 14-week time
period. At the time of data collection,
Chief Project Officer was a website
offering professional development for
project professionals in a variety of
roles, with a special emphasis on strate-
gies for senior management project
decision makers. A total of 657 sub-
scribers from North America completed
the questionnaire during that time peri-
od, resulting in 5633 useable responses.
Ninety-three responses were excluded
from the total because the respondents
identified themselves as the actual proj-
ect managers under question.
The questionnaire instructions stat-
ed: “This survey asks for your judge-
ments of a particular project manager
and team with whom you have recently
worked. Please take a few minutes to
think of this project manager, the nature
of the project, and the members of the
project team. Then respond to the state-
ments and questions in the following
sections.” Periodic reminders to main-
tain this perspective were embedded in
the questionnaire. An example reminder
was to “keep thinking of the same proj-
ect manager and project team.”
3While there were 563 usable responses, only 561 ques-
tionnaires reported the gender of the project manager.
The two missing data points did not affect the log-linear
analysis.
 The questionnaire items (see
Appendix A) used in this study included
demographic and contextual questions
of the respondents and their target proj-
ect managers and project teams. Closed-
ended items included:
• Gender of respondent and target proj-
ect manager
• Age of respondent and target project
manager
• Location: Did/does this project man-
ager work at the same location as you
work/ed?
• Dispersion: Keep thinking of the same
project manager and project team. To
what degree were/are the members of
this project team geographically dis-
persed?
• Technology usage: To what degree did
this project team rely on technology-
mediated communications rather
than face-to-face interaction to
accomplish tasks? (Note: technology-
mediated communications include
telephone, faxes, teleconferences,
e-mail, videoconferences, collabora-
tive design tools, and knowledge
management systems.)
• Cost of identified project
• Size of project team
Open-ended, write-in questions
included:
• What was your role on this project
team (i.e., core team, extended team,
stakeholder, client/customer, con-
tractor, other)?
• What is your functional area of work
(e.g., engineering, marketing, infor-
mation technology, etc.)?
Analysis
We applied log-linear analysis to study
the gender composition of project
teams across contextual (project team)
variables. Used in model building and
testing, log-linear analysis allows for the
study of possible associations between
two or more categorical variables and
their observed frequencies (Rojewski &
Bakeman, 1997) toward the identifica-
tion of the “simplest model that still
generates expected frequencies not too
discrepant from those observed”
(Bakeman & Robinson, 1994, p. 50).
The interpretation of log-linear
analysis results is based on two chi-
square goodness-of-fit tests in which a
nonsignificant result is interpreted as
the model perfectly fitting the data
(Field, 2005; Rojewski & Bakeman,
1997). The first goodness-of-fit test
addresses whether the proposed model
is a good fit for the data. If the result is
not significant, one proceeds to the sec-
ond goodness-of-fit test, which helps
isolate the model variables (including
potential higher-level associations
between variables) that can be removed
without significantly affecting the pre-
dictive power of the model (Field,
2005). Again, a nonsignificant result is
interpreted as the model that best fits
the data, and because of the hierarchi-
cal nature of log-linear analysis, one
focuses only on the remaining highest-
level interaction(s) for interpretation
and model building purposes.
Critical to conducting log-linear
analysis is the creation of cross tabs for
each model in order to assess whether
no more than 20% of the expected cell
counts have less than five observations
(six distinct sets of cross tabs are provid-
ed in Appendix B; Field, 2005). If this
assumption cannot be met, there are
two potential remedies—outside of col-
lecting more data—available to
researchers (Field, 2005). One is to accept
the loss of power. The other is to com-
bine categories within variables to
increase frequency counts. We chose
to combine categories for six of the 11
variables (see Appendix A). We wanted
to prevent a loss of power when testing
more complex models—that is, models
with three or more categorical variables.
When there are significant higher-
level associations, the results from log-
linear analysis can be “elegantly”
reported in terms of odds ratios (Field,
2005, p. 717). Odds ratios are easiest to
understand when variable categories
can be combined into 2 ⫻ 2 contin-
gency tables (Field, 2005). Ultimately,
our decision to guard against a loss of
December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 43
power in no way affected our ability to
uncover and report—in meaningful
ways—the significant results outlined
and then discussed in the remainder of
this article.
Results
Frequency counts for each variable are
provided in Table 1. Most noteworthy,
30% of our subjects, all from North
America, are female (n ⫽ 168) and 70%
are male (n ⫽ 393). These percentages
are identical to the gender breakdowns
from the PMI 2008 Membership
Satisfaction Study, and nearly identical
to the results from PMI’s 2008 Pulse of
the Professional Survey (see the
“Literature Review” section). However,
recent results of the gender breakdown
in PMI’s North American membership,4
which constitutes the same geographic
region as our sample, show that 58.1%
are male and 41.9% are female—a
breakdown representative of the 40%
females necessary for the critical mass
and change advanced by Martin (2008).
Our sample differs by 11.9% more for
both males and females, thus reflecting
the overall PMI membership more
closely than its North American contin-
gent.
Based on our research questions,
four specific combinations of variables
and their respective models were tested
using log-linear analysis. These combi-
nations include: contextual (project-
related) variables (Table 2), project
team members with contextual vari-
ables (Table 3), project managers with
contextual variables (Table 4), and proj-
ect team members and project man-
agers with contextual variables (Table 5).
For all four combinations of variables
and their respective models, the initial
chi-square goodness-of-fit tests were
nonsignificant.
Specific to the contextual (project-
related variables; see Table 2), signifi-
cant higher-order associations included
team dispersion and team tech usage
4Custom study for PMI by Mediamark Research and
Intelligence, LLC, July 2009.
 An Exploratory Study of Gender in Project Management
PAPERS

Variable Variable Descriptors Count included a three-way effect for project

team member gender and location and
Project Manager Gender (1) Female 168
PMGen (2) Male 393 project manager gender
(␹2(26) ⫽ 162.8, p ⬍ 0.001) and a signif-
Project Manager Age (1) 40 and over 368 icant association between project man-
PMAge (2) 39 and under 195 ager gender and project team member
Team Member Gender (1) Female 177 function (p ⬍ 0.05). The significant
TMGen (2) Male 386 association between project team gen-
der and role (p ⬍ 0.05) is noteworthy
Team Member Age (1) 40 and over 395
TMAge (2) 39 and under 168 because it was not significant in the
model results for project team mem-
Team Member Role (1) Core team 211 bers only (see Table 3).
Role (2) Noncore team 352 Finally, Tables 2 through 5 identify
Team Member Function (1) IT 212 significant association results reported
Funct (2) Non-IT 351 earlier. The consistency with which pre-
viously identified association results
Team Member Location (1) Same location 421
Loc (2) Different 142 remain significant in subsequent mod-
els provides additional validation for
Team Dispersion (1) Extremely and majority dispersed 143 our decisions to combine categories
Disp (over 75%) within six of the 11 variables to guard
(2) Some dispersed (50%) 110 against any loss of statistical power but
(3) Slightly dispersed (25%) 177
still be able to report significant find-
(4) Not dispersed (colocated) 133
ings in this exploratory study.
Team Tech Usage (1) Extremely or mostly reliant on 274
Tech technology-mediated communication Discussion
(2) Half of the time reliant on 154 The results of our analyses provide sev-
technology-mediated communication eral significant findings that expand
(3) Slight or no reliance on 135
our knowledge of gender differences in
technology-mediated communication
project management and their interre-
Project Team Size (1) 9 or less 204 lationships with project contextual fac-
Size (2) 10 to 24 214 tors. In this section, we first discuss our
(3) 25 or more 144 findings of the contextual project-
Project Cost (1) $1 million or less 304 related variables. We then consider the
Cost (2) Over $1 million 259 project team members (our question-
naire respondents) with the contextual
Table 1: Variables and variable descriptors.
variables followed by project managers
(identified by their respective team
(p ⬍ 0.001), project team size and proj- and p ⬍ 0.01, respectively). With respect members) and the contextual vari-
ect cost (p ⬍ 0.001), project team size to project managers (see Table 4), proj- ables. Next we look at the interactions
and team dispersion (p ⬍ 0.001), and ect manager gender and age were sig- of project team members and project
project cost and team dispersion nificantly associated with project cost managers with the contextual vari-
(p ⬍ 0.01). Interpretations of all signifi- (p ⬍ 0.01). ables. We conclude the article with lim-
cant higher-order associations are The significant four-way effect itations and suggestions for future
addressed in the “Discussion” section (␹2(1) ⫽ 5.183, p ⬍ 0.05) for the model research.
and in Table 6. that included project team member With respect to the project contex-
Significant higher-order associa- and project manager gender and age is tual factors (Table 2), we found a strong
tions for project team members (see of most interest (see Table 5), and relationship between project team size
Table 3) included the project team highlights the significant associations and project cost. The odds ratio (Table 6)
member function and location (p ⬍ between project team member and shows that project teams with nine or
0.01), the project team member age project manager gender, and project fewer members are almost six times
and role on the project (p ⬍ 0.05), and team member and project manager more likely to work on projects costing
the project team member gender and age. Additional model results for project $1 million or less than larger project
age in relation to project cost (p ⬍ 0.05 team members and project managers teams. Smaller project teams have

44 December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Significant Model Chi-Square
Models Goodness-of-Fit:
[Variables] Significant Associations (Sig.) Likelihood Ratio (Sig.)
[Disp][Tech] Two-way effects, x2(6) ⫽ 139.6, p ⬍ 0.001 0.000 (n.s.)
[Size][Cost] Two-way effects, x2(2) ⫽ 140.1, p ⬍ 0.001 0.000 (n.s.)
[Size][Cost][Tech] Two-way effects, x2(12) ⫽ 149.99, p ⬍ 0.001 9.861 (0.453)
[Size][Cost] (0.000)
[Size][Cost][Disp] Two-way effects, x2(17) ⫽ 180.5, p ⬍ 0.001 8.053 (0.529)
[Size][Cost] (0.000)
[Size][Disp] (0.001)
[Size][Disp][Tech] Two-way effects, x2(28) ⫽ 193.8, p ⬍ 0.001 21.881 (0.147)
[Size][Disp] (0.000)
[Disp][Tech] (0.000)
[Cost][Disp][Tech] Two-way effects, x2(17) ⫽ 156.2, p ⬍ 0.001 4.830 (0.776)
[Cost][Disp] (0.006)
[Disp][Tech] (0.000)
Table 2: Model results: Contextual (project-related) variables.

lower project costs—a finding that sup-
ports either of these contextual factors
as indicators of the overall size of a
project (Ankrah, Proverbs, & Debrah,
2009; Lee-Kelley, 2002; Neuhauser,
2007; Pendharkar & Rodger, 2007).
The odds are even higher (Table 6) that
project teams with higher dispersion
among members are more likely to use
technology-mediated communication,
which reflects Gibson and Cohen’s
(2003) framework for virtual teams.
The degree of dispersion also figures
significantly in its relation to team size.
Smaller project teams tend to be co-
located, more reliant on face-to-face
communication, and cost $1 million or
less. As previous research by DeSanctis

Significant Model Chi-Square

Models Goodness-of-Fit:
[Variables] Significant Associations (Sig.) Likelihood Ratio (Sig.)
[Role][Funct][Loc] Main effects, x2(7) ⫽ 215.2, p ⬍ 0.001 1.373 (0.721)
[Funct][Loc] (0.006)
[TMGen][TMAge] Main effects, x2(31) ⫽ 502.8, p ⬍ 0.001 4.813 (0.903)
[Role][Funct][Loc]
[TMAge][Role] (0.020)
[Funct][Loc] (0.006)a
[TMGen][TMAge] Two-way effects, x2(18) ⫽ 165.3, p ⬍ 0.001 12.763 (0.545)
[Size][Cost]
[TMGen][Cost] (0.012)
[TMAge][Cost] (0.009)
[Size][Cost] (0.000)a
[TMGen][TMAge] Two-way effects, x2(40) ⫽ 161.8, p ⬍ 0.001 52.033 (0.251)
[Disp][Tech]
[Disp][Tech] (0.000)a
aSignificant associations reported previously.

Table 3: Model results: Project team members with contextual variables.

December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 45

 An Exploratory Study of Gender in Project Management
PAPERS

Significant Model Chi-Square

Models Goodness-of-Fit:
[Variables] Significant Associations (Sig.) Likelihood Ratio (Sig.)
[PMGen][PMAge] Two-way effects, x2(18) ⫽ 174.6, p ⬍ 0.001 8.399 (0.868)
[Size][Cost]
[PMGen][Cost] (0.001)
[PMAge][Cost] (0.001)
[Size][Cost] (0.000)a
[PMGen][PMAge] Two-way effects, x2(40) ⫽ 173.2, p ⬍ 0.001 33.452 (0.494)
[Disp][Tech]
[Disp][Tech] (0.000)a
aSignificant associations reported previously.

Table 4: Model results: Project managers with contextual variables.

Significant Model Chi-Square

Models Goodness-of-Fit:
[Variables] Significant Associations (Sig.) Likelihood Ratio (Sig.)
[TMGen][TMAge] Four-way effects, x2(1) ⫽ 5.183, p ⬍ 0.05 0.000 (n.s.)
[PMGen][PMAge]
[TMGen][PMGen] Three-way effects, x2(26) ⫽ 162.8, p ⬍ 0.001 5.183 (0.879)
[Role][Funct][Loc]
[TMGen][PMGen][Loc] (0.001)
[TMGen][PMGen] (0.000)a
[TMGen][Role] (0.040)
[PMGen][Funct] (.019)
[Funct][Loc] (0.005)a
[TMAge][PMAge] Two-way effects, x2(26) ⫽ 75.355, p ⬍ 0.001 2.981 (0.982)
[Role][Funct][Loc]
[TMAge][Role] (0.008)a
[TMAge][PMAge] (0.000)a
[Funct][Loc] (0.007)a
[TMGen][PMGen] Two-way effects, x2(40) ⫽ 292.8, p ⬍ 0.001 31.762 (0.529)
[Disp][Tech]
[TMGen][PMGen] (0.000)a
[Disp][Tech] (0.000)a
[TMAge][PMAge] Two-way effects, x2(40) ⫽ 209.8, p ⬍ 0.001 28.405 (0.695)
[Disp][Tech]
[TMAge][PMAge] (0.000)a
[Disp][Tech] (0.000)a
[TMGen][PMGen] Two-way effects, x2(18) ⫽ 288.1, p ⬍ 0.001 16.691 (0.273)
[Size][Cost]
[PMGen][TMGen] (0.000)a
[PMGen][Cost] (0.019)a
[Size][Cost] (0.000)a
[TMAge][PMAge] Two-way effects, x2(18) ⫽ 211.6, p ⬍ 0.001 13.274 (0.505)
[Size][Cost] [TMAge][PMAge] (0.000)a
[PMAge][Cost] (0.002)a
[Size][Cost] (0.000)a
a Significant associations reported previously.

Table 5: Model results: Project team members and project managers with contextual variables.

46 December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Association Odds Ratio Interpretations
[Disp][Tech] Projects that are mostly to extremely dispersed are 4.6 times more likely to be mostly to extremely reliant on
technology-mediated communication.
[Size][Cost] Projects that have nine or fewer team members are 5.9 times more likely to cost $1 million or less.
[Size][Disp] Projects that have nine or fewer team members are 2.3 times less likely to be mostly to extremely dispersed.
[Cost][Disp] Projects that cost $1 million or less are 1.8 times less likely to be mostly to extremely dispersed.
[Funct][Loc] Core project teams members are 1.14 times more likely to be located at the same location as the project manager.
[TMGen][Cost] Female project team members are 1.5 times more likely to be on projects that cost $1 million or less.
[TMGen][Loc] Female project team members are 1.1 times less likely to be at the same location as the project manager.
[TMGen][Role] Female project team members are 1.4 times more likely to be a core team member than are male project team
members.
[TMAge][Role] Project team members 40 years old and older are 1.5 times less likely to be a project team core member than
are project team members 39 years old and younger.
[TMAge][Cost] Project team members 40 years old and older are 1.7 times less likely to be on projects costing $1 million or
less than are project team members 39 years old and younger.
[PMGen][Cost] Female project managers are 1.9 times more likely to be assigned to projects costing $1 million or less than
are male project managers.
[PMGen][Loc] Female project managers are 1.3 times less likely to be at the same location as project team members.
[PMGen][Funct] Female project managers are 1.4 times more likely to work with IT-functional project team members than are
male project managers.
[PMAge][Cost] Project managers 40 years old and older are 2.1 times less likely to be assigned to projects costing $1 million
or less than project managers 39 years old and younger.
[TMGen][PMGen] Female project team members are 9.0 times more likely to be assigned to female project managers than are
male project team members.
[TMAge][PMAge] Project team members who are 40 years old and older are 3.4 times more likely to be assigned to project man-
agers 40 years old and older than are project team members 39 years old and younger.
Table 6: Significant associations’ odds ratio interpretations.

and Monge (1998), Wallace (2004), and
Walther (1993) showed, the combina-
tion of less dispersion and lower tech-
nology usage, which account for the
majority of cases in our study, can
facilitate interpersonal impressions
among team members and aid in rela-
tionship building more speedily than
its opposite.
The next log-linear analysis of proj-
ect team members with the project
contextual variables (Table 3) produced
several significant and noteworthy rela-
tionships. First, project team members
whose function is information technol-
ogy (IT) are more likely to work at the
same location as their respective proj-
ect managers than team members who
have different functional responsibili-
ties. This finding is similar in type to
previous research that found particular
functions such as R&D and product
development better suited to co-location
(Patti et al., 1997; Van den Bulte &
Moenaert, 1998). It may well be that
project team members with informa-
tion technology expertise paradoxically
require more face-to-face contact with
their project managers than we would
expect by virtue of the essential role
information technology plays in dis-
persed environments.
Female project team members are
almost twice as likely to be on projects
costing $1 million or less (Table 6). This
finding suggests that female team
members may not be associated with
the masculinization of project costs
identified by Buckle and Thomas (2003)
and thus experience less opportunity to
work on larger, more complex projects
that cost more. The previous finding
that projects costing less have smaller
project teams supports this implica-
tion. We also found that female team
members are less likely to work at the
same location as their respective proj-
ect managers and are more likely to

December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 47

 An Exploratory Study of Gender in Project Management
PAPERS
assume the role of core team member
than their male counterparts.
According to Grabher (2004), the core
team, when viewed as one of several
“organizational layers that are tem-
porarily tied together for the comple-
tion of a specific project” (p. 1507),
represents the “elementary learning
arena of projects” (p. 1492). Female
team members may be perceived as
fitting best within this conceptualiza-
tion of a core team in male-dominated
project-based industries where they
have been historically underrepre-
sented (Gale & Cartwright, 1995).
Lastly, we found team members 40
years of age or older to be 1.5 times
less likely to be on core teams than
members 39 years of age and under.
From the perspective of project ecolo-
gies (Grabher, 2004), the firm(s), or
company(s), within which a project
operates as well as the larger commu-
nity of clients, suppliers, and corporate
or organizational groups, all comprise
the arena in which noncore team
members operate in extended rela-
tionships with core team members.
It is probable that these extended
team members, as opposed to core team
members, are older in age given the
requirements for their experience,
expertise, knowledge, and capabilities.
As shown in Table 4, both the gen-
der and age of project managers signif-
icantly interact with project cost.
Female project managers are almost
twice as likely to work on projects cost-
ing $1 million or less than are male
project managers (Table 6). This finding
is consistent with the result for female
project team members. In effect, both
female project managers and team
members are significantly more likely
to work on lower-cost, smaller projects
than their male counterparts. Hodgson
(2002) argues that project assignments
allow individuals to demonstrate abili-
ties, strengths, and professionalism,
which addresses both the responsibili-
ty/accountability demands ascribed to
the project manager as well as the
opportunities for individuals—both
48 December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
project managers and core team mem-
bers—to use project assignments to
build their careers. The role of project
manager could be a path to power.
Kanter (1977) wrote of “homosocial
reproduction,” which is the reproduc-
tion of social characteristics of organi-
zational power structures over succes-
sive generations of work. If men are
more likely to manage projects that
are larger in scale (e.g., number of team
members and cost of project) and thus
likely to be more visible, then they may
be more likely to sustain their positions
in the organizational power structure.
Finally, project managers 40 years of
age or older are two times less likely to
be assigned to projects costing $1 mil-
lion or less than project managers 39
years of age and younger. This finding is
consistent with that of project team
members. It also lends credence to both
Grabher’s (2004) notion of project
ecologies and the implication of
Hodgson’s (2002) research that the role
of the project manager is a path to
power in which a project manager’s
experience, expertise, and authority
(older and male) leads to roles on larg-
er, more costly projects.
Table 5 shows the final set of results
from the log-linear analysis of project
team members and project managers
with the contextual variables. The most
striking results concern gender. Female
project team members are nine times
more likely to work with female project
managers than are male project team
members. Female project managers are
also more likely to be dispersed from
team members (Table 6). These find-
ings are especially critical given the pre-
vious findings that female project man-
agers and team members are more like-
ly to work on smaller, less costly proj-
ects. In addition, female team members
are more likely to be dispersed from
their project managers and to work on
core teams. Taken together, these
results indicate that both female project
managers and team members may be
locked in a vicious cycle of project
assignments on lower-cost, smaller
projects, leaving them more marginal-
ized both geographically and culturally
from power-gaining experiences in
comparison to their male counterparts.
“Homosocial reproduction” (Kanter,
1977) appears to have transferred into
the project management discipline,
along with the prevalent bias toward
masculine logic systems and sense
making (Buckle & Thomas, 2003). This
“homosocial reproduction,” as repre-
sented in relational and organizational
demography, mediates a variety of
individual-level and organizational-
level outcomes at work (Tsui & Gutek,
1999; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). Thus, the
historical “glass ceiling” for women or
“glass escalator” for men (Rudman &
Phelan, 2008) found in general man-
agement exists within contemporary
project management as well.
The final two results from Table 5
show that female project managers
are more likely to work with project
team members with an IT function than
are male project managers. Since team
members with an IT functional respon-
sibility are more likely to be colocated
with their project manager, it appears
that this relationship is more stable
when both team members and project
managers are male. Lastly, project team
members who are 40 years of age and
older are 3.4 times more likely to work
on teams with project managers in the
same age group than are team members
39 years of age and younger. As previ-
ously discussed, team members of this
40+ age group are less likely to be on a
core team and, along with project man-
agers, less likely to be on projects cost-
ing $1 million or less. Returning to
Grabher’s (2004) project ecologies, these
results collectively indicate a relation-
ship between age and the experience
and expertise found more frequently in
extended team members as opposed to
core team members.
Limitations and Future Research
Our exploratory research design allows
us to report on the relationships among
project contextual variables and the
gender of project team members and
their respective project managers. We
relied on self-report data for our results
and, as with other research utilizing this
methodology, care should be taken in
generalizing the results to the project
management discipline. As one way to
obviate this concern, we asked respon-
dents to indicate whether or not the
project they referenced in answering
our survey questions was completed or
ongoing. Over 70% of respondents ref-
erenced current, ongoing projects. Our
use of a common method of data col-
lection may have limited our ability to
uncover other significant results. This
qualification may apply to the design of
the questionnaire response sets and
our decisions to collapse some of the
response sets. These limitations
notwithstanding, our results can be
fairly generalized due to our sample’s
validation of gender breakdown by the
various PMI research studies discussed
earlier. In addition, the overall results of
our study provide a significant and
compelling view of the role that gender
in particular plays within the relation-
ships of project team members, their
project managers, and key contextual
factors of the project management
environment.
As to future research, the results of
our study point toward the need for
continued efforts to uncover and
understand the dynamics of gender
within project management. For exam-
ple, any study linking gender and proj-
ect teams has the potential to inform us
as to how personal and structural char-
acteristics in the workplace affect men
and women. Besides replicating our
study with additional samples, we rec-
ommend that future research also
include an examination of gender
across different geographic regions.
The current gender breakdown of PMI
membership in North America is quite
different from that found in the Asia
Pacific region (82.4% male and 17.6%
female), Europe/Middle East/Africa
region (86.1% male and 13.9% female),
and the Latin America/Caribbean
region (77.4% male and 22.6% female).5
This area of research has direct implica-
tions for cross-cultural influences on
gender inequities within global project
management teams (Mills, 2003).
We also recommend that future
researchers look at gender across differ-
ent industries—in particular, construc-
tion, consulting, financial services,
information technology, and telecom-
munications. This recommendation
especially applies to those organiza-
tions that rely upon structures in which
project management organizations
(PMOs) and project portfolio manage-
ment groups play a key role in the man-
agement of organizations (McDonough &
Spital, 2003).
Future research is also needed
regarding project managers’ ability to
select project team members (in partic-
ular, core team members), which would
raise the potential for additional gender
differences, relationships, and dynam-
ics. This type of focus could lead to
future research on “success measures”
specific to projects—that is, timeliness
of completion, cost overruns, and cus-
tomer satisfaction with respect to the
quality of ultimate project outcomes.
Including these “success measures” is
important for gender comparisons
especially with regard to how women
project managers and team members
are successful regardless of the cost of
their projects. Understanding success
would require future research that
examines the actual performance of
project managers and how their behav-
iors affect their teams’ performance
(Turner & Muller, 2005). Lastly we rec-
ommend that future research consider
family-related factors of both female
and male project managers and team
members in order to understand how
family responsibilities may explain gen-
der differences with respect to team
size, project cost, and dispersed versus
colocated project teams (van der Lippe &
van Dijk, 2002).
5Custom study for PMI by Mediamark Research and
Intelligence, LLC, July 2009.
December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 49
Conclusion
The results of our exploratory study
confirm the importance of gender in
project management and its interrela-
tionships with role, location, technolo-
gy, and cost. The major contribution is
the gender makeup of project teams
and the segregation of women on
smaller, less costly, more dispersed core
project teams that rely on technology-
mediated communication more than
those of men. The limited participation
afforded to women in these types of
projects calls into question their ability
to move forward and develop human
and social capital in contemporary
project environments.
Timberlake (2005) argues that, in
general, women continue to lag behind
men in career advancement and in lev-
els of compensation and achieved sta-
tus. This is due, in part, to women’s
inability to access social capital,
defined as the collective value of all
social networks and the trust, reciproc-
ity, information, and cooperation with-
in an organization (Prusak & Cohen,
2001). Participation on project teams,
especially as a project manager or core
team member, provides an excellent
forum for an individual to develop
social capital that spans functional and
hierarchical levels in the organization.
Social capital is a source of knowledge,
resources, and networks that is essen-
tial for career development and matu-
ration (Timberlake, 2005). Timberlake
(2005) adds that, while women may
enter into an organization with similar
levels of human capital as men, their
subsequent success is not determined
by human capital alone. Her argument,
as we interpret it, clearly illustrates the
importance of participation in informal
organizational networks.
Given the increasing importance of
projects within organizations over the
past decade, participation in key posi-
tions on projects may portend increased
human and social capital along with vis-
ibility and thus career advancement
opportunities for women that could fur-
ther erode the glass ceiling/sticky floor
 An Exploratory Study of Gender in Project Management
PAPERS
barriers. However, our results highlight
the opposite. Segregation on projects
may actually hinder a woman’s ability to
break through the glass ceiling or break
from the sticky floor in the project man-
agement discipline. Reskin (2000, p. 707)
says it best: “Inequality at work does not
just happen; it occurs through acts and
the failures to act by people who run
and work for organizations.”
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Dr. Deborah
Bloch, professor emeritus in the School
of Education at the University of San
Francisco, for her assistance with the
early formation of this research study. ■
References
Ali, A. S. B., Anbarri, F. T., & Money,
W. H. (2008). Impact of organizational
and project factors on acceptance and
usage of project management software
and perceived project success. Project
Management Journal, 39(2), 5–34.
Ankrah, N. A., Proverbs, D., & Debrah, Y.
(2009). Factors influencing the culture
of a construction project organization:
An empirical investigation. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural
Management, 16(1), 26–37.
Bakeman, R., & Robinson, B. F. (1994).
Understanding log-linear analysis with
ILOG: An interactive approach. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bartol, K. M., Martin, D. C., &
Kromkowski, J. A. (2003). Leadership
and the glass ceiling: Gender and
ethnic group influences on leader
behaviors at middle and executive
managerial levels. Journal of Leadership
and Organization Studies, 9(3), 8–20.
Berger, J., Webster, M., Jr., Ridgeway,
C. L., & Rosenholtz, S. J. (1986). Status
cues, expectations, and behaviors. In
E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group
process (Vol. 3, pp. 1–22). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Bohlen, G. A., Lee, D. R., & Sweeney,
P. J. (1998). Why and how project man-
agers attempt to influence their team
members. Engineering Management
Journal, 10(4), 21–28.
50 December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Brooks, F. P. (1978). The mythical man-
month: Essays on software engineering.
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of
Computer Science.
Buckle, P., & Thomas, J. (2003).
Deconstructing project management:
A gender analysis of project manage-
ment guidelines. International Journal
of Project Management, 21, 433–441.
Chapman, R. J. (1998). The effective-
ness of working group risk identifica-
tion and assessment techniques.
International Journal of Project
Management, 16, 333–344.
Charlesworth, S., & Baird, M. (2007).
Getting gender on the agenda: The
tale of two organizations. Women in
Management Review, 22, 391–404.
Cohen, H., & Braford, D. (2005).
Influence without authority (2nd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Cortesi, G. J. (2001). The relation of
communication channel and task on
group composition, participation, and
performance in virtual organizations.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
State University of New York at Albany,
Albany, NY.
Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004). Hard
and soft projects: A framework for
analysis. International Journal of
Project Management, 22, 645–653.
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1998).
Communication processes for virtual
organizations. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 3(4).
Retrieved June 21, 2005, from
http://www.asusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue
4/desanctis.html
Dinsmore, P. C., & Cabanis-Brewin, J.
(2006). The AMA handbook of project
management (2nd ed.). New York:
AMACOM.
Ely, R. J. (1994). The effects of organi-
zational demographics and social
identity on relationships among pro-
fessional women. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 39, 203–238.
Eppler, M. J., & Sukowski, O. (2000).
Managing team knowledge: Core
processes, tools and enabling factors.
European Management Journal, 18,
334–342.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics
using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Furumo, K., & Pearson, J. M. (2007).
Gender-based communication styles,
trust, and satisfaction on virtual teams.
Journal of Information, Information
Technology, and Organizations, 2,
47–60.
Gale, A., & Cartwright, S. (1995).
Women in project management: Entry
into a male domain?: A discussion on
gender and organizational culture—
Part 1. Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal, 16(2), 3–8.
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2003).
Virtual teams that work: Creating con-
ditions for virtual team effectiveness.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grabher, G. (2004). Architectures of
project-based learning: Creating and
sedimenting knowledge in project
ecologies. Organization Studies, 25,
1491–1514.
Graham, A. K. (2000). Beyond project
management 101: Lessons for manag-
ing large development programs.
Project Management Journal, 31(4),
7–19.
Henderson, L. S. (2008). The impact of
project managers’ communication
competencies: Validation and exten-
sion of a research model for virtuality,
satisfaction, and productivity on proj-
ect teams. Project Management
Journal, 39(2), 48–59.
Hodgson, D. (2002). Disciplining the
profession: The case of project man-
agement. Journal of Management
Studies, 39, 803–821.
Hutt, M. D., Stafford, E. R., Walker, B.
A., & Reingen, P. H. (2000). Case study:
Defining the social network of a strate-
gic alliance. Sloan Management
Review, 41(2), 51–63.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of
the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Knutson, J. (2001). Succeeding in proj-
ect-driven organizations. New York:
Wiley.
Kuehn, U. (2006). Integrated cost and
schedule control in project manage-
ment. Vienna, VA: Management
Concepts.
Lee, D. R., & Bohlen, G. A. (1997).
Influence strategies of project man-
agers in the information technology
industry. Engineering Management
Journal, 9(2), 7–14.
Lee, D. R., & Sweeney, P. E. (2001). An
assessment of influence tactics used by
project managers. Engineering
Management Journal, 13(2), 16–24.
Lee-Kelley, L. (2002). Situational lead-
ership: Managing the virtual project
team. Journal of Management
Development, 21, 461–476.
Lee-Kelley, L. (2006). Locus of control
and attitudes to working on virtual
teams. International Journal of Project
Management, 24, 234–243.
Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2006).
What’s new in new forms of organiz-
ing? On the construction of gender in
project-based work. Journal of
Management Studies, 43, 841–866.
Lu, M., Watson-Manheim, M. B.,
Chudoba, K. M., & Wynn, E. (2006).
Virtuality and team performance:
Understanding the impact of variety of
practices. Journal of Global
Information Technology Management,
9(1), 4–23.
Martin, J. (2000). Hidden gendered
assumptions in mainstream organiza-
tional theory and research. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 9, 207–216.
Martin, J. (2008). Treacherous terrain:
Equity and equality at work and at
home. Graduate School of Business,
Stanford University. Retrieved
December 26, 2008, from http://
www.atn.edu.au/wexdev/local/docs/
research//joanne_martin.pdf.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard,
M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we
know and where do we go from here?
Journal of Management, 30, 805–835.
McDonough, E. F., III, & Spital, F. C.
(2003). Managing project portfolios.
Research Technology Management,
46(3), 40–46.
Mills, M. B. (2003). Gender and
inequality in the global labor force.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 33,
41–62.
Mulenburg, G. M. (2002). Virtual man-
ufacturing. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 19(2),
180–186.
Neuhauser, C. (2007). Project manager
leadership behaviors and frequency of
use by female project managers. Project
Management Journal, 38(1), 21–31.
Patti, A. L., Gilbert, J. P., & Hartman, S.
(1997). Physical co-location and the
success of new product development
projects. Engineering Management
Journal, 9(3), 31–37.
Pendharkar, P. C., & Rodger, J. A.
(2007). An empirical study of the
impact of team size on software devel-
opment effort. Information Technology
Management, 8, 253–262.
Project Management Institute. (2008).
A guide to the project management
body of knowledge (PMBOK ® guide)—
Fourth edition. Newtown Square, PA:
Author.
Project Management Institute. (2009).
Retrieved August 1, 2009, from
http://www.pmi.org/AboutUs/Pages/
Default.aspx.
Prusak, L., & Cohen, D. (2001). How to
invest in social capital. Harvard
Business Review, 79(6), 86–92.
Reich, B. H. (2007). Managing knowl-
edge and learning in IT projects: A
conceptual framework and guidelines
for practice. Project Management
Journal, 38(2), 5–17.
Remington, K., & Pollack, J. (2007).
Tools for complex projects. Burlington,
VT: Gower.
Reskin, B. F. (2000). Getting it right: Sex
and race inequality in work organiza-
tions. Annual Review of Sociology, 26,
707–709.
Richmond, A., & Skitmore, M. (2006).
Stress and coping: A study of project
managers in large ICT organizations.
Project Management Journal, 37(5),
5–16.
December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 51
Rojewski, J. W., & Bakeman, R. (1997).
Applying log-linear models to the
study of career development and tran-
sition of individuals with disabilities.
Exceptionality, 7(3), 169–186.
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008).
Backlash effects for disconfirming gen-
der stereotypes in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior,
28, 61–79.
Sahdev, K., Vinnicombe, S., & Tyson, S.
(1999). Downsizing and the changing
role of human resources. International
Journal of Human Resources
Management, 10, 906–923.
Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Lingenfelter,
D. (1996). Gender, group composition,
and task type in small task groups
using computer-mediated communi-
cation. Computers in Human Behavior,
12, 549–565.
Schmid, B., & Adams, J. (2008).
Motivation in project management:
The project manager’s perspective.
Project Management Journal, 39(2),
60–71.
Sharifi, S., & Pawar, K. S. (2002).
Virtually co-located product design
teams: Sharing teaming experiences
after the event? International Journal
of Operations & Production
Management, 22, 656–679.
Smith, R. A. (2002). Race, gender, and
authority in the workplace: Theory and
research. Annual Review of Sociology,
28, 509–542.
Stewart, A. J., & McDermott, C. (2004).
Gender in psychology. Annual Review
of Psychology, 55, 519–544.
Styhe, A., Backman, M., & Borjesson,
S. (2005). YCC: A gendered carnival?
Project work at Volvo Cars. Women in
Management Review, 20(1/2), 96–106.
Thomas, J. L., & Buckle-Henning, P.
(2007). Dancing in the white spaces:
Exploring gendered assumptions in
successful project managers.
International Journal of Project
Management, 25, 552–559.
Timberlake, S. (2005). Social capital
and gender in the workplace. Journal
 An Exploratory Study of Gender in Project Management
PAPERS
of Management Development, 24(1/2),
34–44.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999).
Demographic differences in organiza-
tions: Current research and future
directions. New York: Lexington.
Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1989).
Beyond simple demographic effects:
The importance of relational demogra-
phy in supervisor–subordinate dyads.
Academy of Management Journal, 32,
402–423.
Turner, J. R., & Muller, R. (2005). The
project manager’s leadership style as a
success factor on projects: A literature
review. Project Management Journal,
36(2), 49–61.
Van den Bulte, C., & Moenaert, R. K.
(1998). The effects of R&D team co-
location on communication patterns
among R&D, marketing, and manufac-
turing. Management Science, 44(11),
S1–S18.
van der Lippe, T., & van Dijk, L. (2002).
Comparative research on women’s
employment. Annual Review of
Sociology, 28, 221–241.
Wallace, P. (2004). The internet in the
workplace: How new technology is
transforming work. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
52 December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression devel-
opment in computer-mediated inter-
action. Western Journal of
Communication, 57, 381–398.
Yang, L., O’Connor, J. T., & Wang, C.
(2006). Technology utilization on
different sizes of projects and associat-
ed impacts on composite project
success. International Journal of
Project Management, 24(2),
96–105.
Zhang, H., & Flynn, P. C. (2003).
Effectiveness of alliances between
operating companies and engineering
companies. Project Management
Journal, 34(3), 48–52.
Linda S. Henderson, PhD, is associate professor
and director of the MS degree program in project
management in the School of Business and
Professional Studies at the University of San
Francisco. She has many years of experience in
consulting to and managing projects within a
variety of industries and during reengineering,
technology-driven, and organizational change
initiatives. She is currently conducting research
on women leaders and their communication
competence in managing projects. She is also on
the editorial board of the International Journal of
Project Organization and Management. Her
research has been published in the Project
Management Journal, Management
Communication Quarterly, the International
Journal of Project Management, the Organization
Development Journal, Psychological Reports,
Emergence: Complexity and Organization, World
Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, the
Western Journal of Speech Communication, and
the Kentucky Journal of Speech Communication.
She received her PhD in organizational communi-
cation from Florida State University.
Richard W. Stackman, PhD, is an associate pro-
fessor and the chair of the Organizations,
Leadership & Society Department in the School
of Business and Professional Studies at the
University of San Francisco. His scholarly inter-
ests include organizational change, organiza-
tional sages, complexity science, personal val-
ues, and personal networks. He is coauthor of
Managing Organizational Change (3rd ed.) and
has published articles or chapters in the Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory,
the Journal of Higher Education, the Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, the Journal
of Management Education, Emergence, and the
Handbook of Organizational Climate and
Culture. He is currently the president of the
Western Academy of Management.
Appendix A: Combination of Variable Categories for Log-Linear Analysis

Variable Questionnaire Response Set Study Categories

Project Manager Age (1) 60 or older (1) 40 and over
(2) 40–59 (2) 39 and under
(3) 26–39
(4) Under 26
Team Member Age (1) 60 or older (1) 40 and over
(2) 40–59 (2) 39 and under
(3) 26–39
(4) Under 26
Team Dispersion (1) Extremely dispersed (100%) (1) Extremely and majority dispersed
(2) Majorly dispersed (75%) (2) Some dispersed
(3) Some dispersed (50%) (3) Slightly dispersed
(4) Slightly dispersed (25%) (4) Not dispersed
(5) Not dispersed (colocated)
Team Tech Usage (1) Extremely reliant on technology-mediated (1) Extremely or mostly reliant on
communication (100%) technology-mediated communication
(2) Most of the time reliant on technology-mediated (2) Half of the time reliant on technology-
communication (75%) mediated communication
(3) Half of the time reliant on technology-mediated (3) Slight or no reliance on technology-
communication (50%) mediated communication
(4) Slightly reliant on technology-mediated
communication (25%)
(5) Did not use technology-mediated
communication (0%)
Project Team Size (1) 4 or less (1) 9 or less
(2) 5–9 (2) 10 to 24
(3) 10–24 (3) 25 or more
(4) 25–49
(5) 49 or more
Project Cost (1) Less than $100K (1) $1 million or less
(2) $100K–$250K (2) Over $1 million
(3) $250K–$500K
(4) $500K–$1 million
(5) $1 million–$2.5 million
(6) Over $2.5 million

Table A1: Variable categories for log-linear analysis.

December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 53

 An Exploratory Study of Gender in Project Management
PAPERS

Appendix B: Variable Cross Tabs

Size Size Size

9 or less 10 to 24 25 or more
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
$1 Million Over $1 $1 Million Over $1 $1 Million Over $1
Team Dispersion Tech Usage or Less Million or Less Million or Less Million
Extremely or Majority Extremely or mostly 19 10 23 18 7 33
Dispersed
Half of time reliant 4 2 6 9 3 5
Slight or no reliance 0 0 1 1 0 2
Some Dispersed Extremely or mostly 16 5 14 14 3 12
Half of time reliant 5 1 8 8 1 10
Slight or no reliance 3 1 2 0 2 5
Slightly Dispersed Extremely or mostly 24 3 20 12 2 7
Half of time reliant 21 1 9 11 2 17
Slight or no reliance 14 5 14 8 0 7
Not Dispersed Extremely or mostly 14 2 5 3 1 7
Half of time reliant 13 5 3 6 2 2
Slight or no reliance 29 7 12 8 2 12
Table B1: Project team size and cost—Team dispersion and tech usage.

Role Role
Core Team Noncore Team
Cost Cost Cost Cost
Team Member
$1 Million $1 Million $1 Million $1 Million
Gender Age or Less or Less or Less or Less
Female 40 and over 29 27 43 30
39 and under 15 5 20 8
Male 40 and over 36 44 90 96
39 and under 35 20 36 29
Table B2: Team member role, gender, and age—Project cost.

Location Location
Function Same as Project Manager Different From Project Manager
IT 172 40
Non-IT 249 102
Table B3: Team member location and function.

54 December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Project Manager Project Manager
Female Male
Cost 40 and Over 39 and Under 40 and Over 39 and Under
$1 million or less 61 48 115 80
Over $1 million 41 18 149 49
Table B4: Project manager gender and age—Project cost.

Team Member Project Manager Project Manager

Location Function Female Male
Same as project IT 54 117
manager
Non-IT 66 183
Different from IT 19 21
project manager
Non-IT 29 72
Table B5: Project manager gender—Team member location and function.

Project Manager Project Manager

Female Male
Team Member 40 and Over 39 and Under 40 and Over 39 and Under
Female 40 and over 58 9 28 7
39 and under 22 20 16 8
Male 40 and over 31 11 174 48
39 and under 17 8 48 56
Table B6: Project manager gender and age—Team member gender and age.

December 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 55