Samenvatting
Summary Cross-cultural Psychology, Theme 8: Diversity in teams and organizations
An extensive summary of all the articles and bookchapters (in English) of Theme 8: Diversity in teams and organizations. Schoolyear: 2020/2021
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 29 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 29 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Theme 8 – Diversity in teams and organizationsVignette 1-2
• (Adair et al., 2017 – Buffering Against the Detrimental Effects of Demographic Faultline’s: The
Curious Case of Intragroup Conflict in Small Work Groups)
• (Sawyer et al., 2006 – Decision performance and diversity structure: Comparing faultlines in
convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups)
• (Greer et al., 2012 – Tainted visions: The effect of visionary leader behaviours and leader
categorization tendencies on the financial performance of ethnically diverse teams)
• (Meyer et al., 2014 – On the Same Side of the Faultline: Inclusion in the Leader's Subgroup
and Employee Performance)
Vignette 3-5
• (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013 – Managing a culturally diverse workforce: Diversity perspectives
in organizations)
• (Jansen et al., 2015 – Colour-blind or colourful? How diversity approaches affect cultural
majority and minority employees)
• (Meeussen et al., 2014 – Managing diversity: How leaders’ multiculturalism and
colourblindness affect work group functioning)
• (Haley & Sidanius, 2006 – The positive and negative framing of affirmative action: A group
dominance perspective)
VIGNETTE 1
How do ethnicity and information have an effect on group decision making?
How do differences within a group affect how the group functions (e.g. differences in ethnicity or
information)?
(Adair et al., 2017 – Buffering Against the Detrimental Effects of Demographic Faultline’s: The
Curious Case of Intragroup Conflict in Small Work Groups)
Group faultlines: Hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or
more attributes. Subgroup formation can hinder group performance through increased intragroup
competition and decreased communication, information sharing, and motivation to contribute.
The categorization-elaboration model (CEM) combines social identity with information processing
theories to predict that categorization pressures and negative effects of faultlines can be avoided
when groups capitalize on their diverse knowledge and perspectives through information elaboration
→ so, when groups exchange and discuss information and communicate across subgroups, the
negative effects of demographic faultlines can be diminished.
In this study: They review the faultline literature, focusing on research that measured conflict and/or
identified moderators of the faultline–group performance link. They review conflict literature,
highlighting research that identifies positive effects of group conflict, to develop their prediction that
conflict can buffer the negative effects of faultlines on group performance. Also, they present 2
studies that measure (study 1) and manipulate (study 2) demographic faultlines.
Theory Development
Demographic Faultlines and Group Performance
Faultlines emerge through self-categorization, social identification, and similarity-attraction whereby
individuals within teams notice and identify with others who are similar.
Because faultlines undermine group processes and performance due to poor communication and
competition between subgroups, bridging faultlines requires inducing a superordinate team identity
and/or effective cross-subgroup interaction. Thus, the negative faultline-performance relationship is
,weakened when groups have a strong team identity, and the positive relationship between faultlines
and group conflict in teams with low identification is not significant in teams with high identification.
Other moderators are openness to experience, team leader’s diversity beliefs, social category
salience, and the strength of ethnic status subgroups.
The CEM explains that effective performance in diverse groups depends on taking advantage of
diverse knowledge and perspective, a process than can be disrupted by the emergence of subgroups
that generate conflict and limit communication. CEM combines elements of both categorization and
information processing theories to explain variation in the effect of faultlines on group process and
outcome.
➢ A study showed that when subgroups were linked by bridging friendship ties, creating
opportunities for cross-subgroup interaction, negative effects of faultlines on group
performance were extinguished. But when subgroups were marked by breaching animosity
ties, limiting cross-subgroup interaction, the effect of faultlines on group performance
became more negative.
Faultlines and Group Conflict
Conflict: Perceived differences or incompatibilities among group members.
3 types of conflict:
❖ Task conflict: Involves disagreements over work-related issues.
❖ Relationship conflict: Includes disagreement about interpersonal issues.
❖ Process conflict: Refers to disagreements over how work gets done.
There are inconsistent findings of how the faultlines lead to conflict:
- A curvilinear faultline-conflict relationship, such that groups with moderately strong
faultlines experience low levels of relationship and process conflict relative to groups with
weak or strong faultlines
- Tenure-age faultlines increase conflict, but tenure-race faultlines decrease conflict.
- Mena-analyses report that relationship and process conflict are detrimental to group
performance, whereas results for task conflict have been inconsistent. The impact of conflict
on group performance depends on conflict and task type, group interdependence, group
norms for open discussion, and conflict openness.
They propose that intrateam conflict will diminish negative effects of faultlines on group
performance → Conflict should prompt communication across subgroups and initiates information
processing than can bridge category-based subgroups according to CEM. It is proposed that
facilitation cross-subgroup communication (e.g. by elevating psychological safety) can diminish
negative effects of faultlines. By engaging subgroups, the experience of conflict may buffer the
negative effects.
When people are exposed to opposing minority views, they exert more cognitive effort to process
information, increasing attention and divergent thinking, and are able to produce more novel
solutions and make better decisions. Faultline subgroups are likely to amplify ingroup-outgroup
distinctions within the group, thus, when intragroup conflict erupts, faultline subgroup may be
particularly attuned to opposing views presented by the other subgroup.
Study 1 – Hypothesis 1: Relationship (a), task (b), and process conflict (c) will buffer the
negative association between groups faultlines and group performance such that the
negative association is weaker when conflict is high.
Method: Participants were 188 students forming 47 four-person groups. All measures used a 7-point
response scale.
,Results: Supporting hypothesis 1a, the relationship between faultline strength and group
performance was negative and significant when relationship conflict was low, but not significant
when relationship conflict was high. The same pattern was observed for task and process conflict →
supporting hypothesis 1b and 1c.
Discussion Study 1: The results show that all 3 types of conflict buffer the negative effect of
demographic faultlines on group performance.
Study 2: To build on these findings and provide stronger evidence they conducted a laboratory
experiment where they manipulated the presence of intragroup conflict. They also manipulated
faultlines by composing groups that contained ethnic faultlines or no faultlines. Groups with no
faultlines should not suffer from subgroup-based communication deficiencies that can limit cognitive
elaboration, coordination, and group performance.
Study 2 – Hypothesis 2: Intragroup conflict (vs. no conflict) buffers the negative effect of
faultlines (vs. no faultlines) on group performance such that group performance will be
higher for faultline teams in the conflict condition compared to the no-conflict condition,
but group performance will lower for no-faultline groups in the conflict condition compared
to the no-conflict condition.
Method: Participants were 396 undergraduate students at a Canadian university forming 76 four-
person groups. The task required groups to generate a list of as many useful items as possible to
survive in a desert and to generate arguments as to why the items are useful. They were also
instructed to read an information pamphlet. They manipulated faultlines by assigning participants to
groups based on their pre-experiment demographic information obtained through department mass
testing before they came to the research laboratory. Groups were also randomly assigned to either a
conflict or no-conflict condition.
Results:
- Preliminary Analyses: Groups in the conflict condition rated perceived relationship conflict
and task conflict significantly higher than groups in the no-conflict condition. However, there
were no significant differences in perceptions of process conflict between groups in the
conflict conditions and the no-conflict condition → suggest that their conflict manipulation
was successful in inducing 2 types of conflict, relationship and task conflict.
- Hypothesis Testing: They found no significant interaction between conflict and faultlines,
indicating that hypothesis 2 was not supported.
➔ One possible reason is that the no-faultline condition included both East Asian and
Caucasian Canadian ethnically homogeneous groups. Liang et al. argued that the
temporal experience and consequences of intragroup conflict vary depending on a
group’s cultural identity. Because of this the authors of this article distinguished between
the 2 ethnic groups.
➔ Results revealed that there was no significant difference in group performance between
the no-faultline East Asian and faultline teams, but significant different between no-
faultline Caucasian Canadian and faultline teams.
So, partially in line with study 1, they found a buffering effect of group conflict on the negative group
faultline-group performance relationship, but only when comparing faultline teams and no-faultline
North American teams, not when comparing faultline with no-faultline East Asian teams.
General Discussion
Conflict can generate cross-subgroup communication and information elaboration that diminishes
the negative categorization effects. The studies showed that demographic faultlines had a less
negative effect on group performance for student teams that reported greater team conflict earlier
in the term (study 1) and under conditions of conflict, ethnic faultline groups performed better than
, Caucasian Canadian no-faultline groups in a laboratory study (study 2). Together the findings support
predictions based on CEM theory and constructive controversy.
(Sawyer et al., 2006 – Decision performance and diversity structure: Comparing faultlines in
convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups)
Theoretically, interaction between business members with diverse background results in higher
quality decisions than any individual would achieve working alone. Having people from multiple
business functions and background work together in groups is expected to provide a broader range
of perspectives than would come from homogenous groups of individuals.
➢ However, research on diversity in groups has shown mixed results. A meta-analysis found no
consistent effect of diversity on performance of groups cohesion. One possibility is that this
may occur because researchers ignore different effects of types of diversity (e.g., surface vs.
deep level). Different attributes of diversity may affect performance only to the extent that
they affect social integration in groups.
Diversity activates social categorization, in which individuals identify themselves as insiders or
outsiders. As a result, groups may not adequately integrate information across job-function or racial
subgroups. Self-categorization on salient differences leads to boundaries that influence group
processes, limit communication, and diminish group cohesion → ingroup vs. outsider boundaries as
faultlines.
In this current study: They study 2 types of faultlines; demographic diversity and informational
differences. The study focuses on when and how diversity effects might be operating with the goal of
learning how to leverage the predicted, but elusive effects of diversity.
Group Level Effects of Diversity Structure and Prior Choices
In an attempt to understand the effects of diversity, researchers have differentiated job-related
diversity such as attitudes, viewpoints, and knowledge from less job-related diversity such as race,
gender and age. Group level diversity translates into individual attributes that are task-related or
relations-oriented. Task-related diversity may occur when members of different job-functions bring
different information to bear on a problem. Resulting information differences provide different
perspectives, but may result in conflicting viewpoint and opinions pertaining to a group task..
Time may moderate the effects of surface level versus deep level diversity. Surface level attributes
such as race and gender are immediately evident, whereas deep level diversity relates to those
attributes such as attitudes, beliefs and values that take time to emerge from interpersonal
interaction. Time neutralizes the negative effects of surface level diversity on workgroup cohesion,
but the recognition of deep level diversity emerges over time as people learn about others attitudes
and beliefs.
Diversity Structure: The Configuration of Faultlines
Social identity theory and self-categorization theory are the frameworks for understanding the
effects of diversity on social integration:
- Self-categorization theory suggest that individuals use various attributes of others to
determine to what groups they belong. Informational differences of group members may
acts as a deep level diversity that can emerge over time, or can be cues by known job-
function differences so that job related information differences act more like surface level
diversity.
- Social identity theory suggests that any salient characteristics can lead to subgroup identity
in which members see themselves as insiders, and view others as outsiders.
Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:
Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews
Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!
In een paar klikken geregeld
Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.
Direct to-the-point
Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper rosaliefkoomen. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 66184 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen