1932

Abstract

The study of diversity in work groups and organizations has become a significant domain of inquiry. However, the overall consensus in this literature seems to be that a direct relationship between diversity and performance-based outcomes is tenuous at best. To break this impasse, we propose a structural-emergence model that emphasizes how the embedding structural context has substantial implications for the very meaning, salience, and content of diversity in teams. We then discuss how emergent processes that are a function of the structural context can take symmetric and asymmetric forms at the level of dyads within the team. In this way we provide a framework that takes into account both top-down and bottom-up effects of diversity in teams. The structural-emergence model also has important implications for how teams may be led and team tasks designed, and it provides avenues to build an actionable agenda for theory and research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062421
2018-01-21
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/5/1/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062421.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062421&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aronson ZH, Reilly RR, Lynn GS. 2006. The impact of leader personality on new product development teamwork and performance: the moderating role of uncertainty. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 23:3221–47 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bamberger P. 2008. From the editors: beyond contextualization: using context theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in management research. Acad. Manag. J. 51:5839–46 [Google Scholar]
  3. Banaji MR, Prentice DA. 1994. The self in social contexts. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 45:1297–332 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK. 1998. Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:3377–91 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berger J, Fisek MH, Norman RZ, Zelditch M. 1977. Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach New York: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  6. Berger J, Rosenholtz SJ, Zelditch M. 1980. Status organizing processes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 6:1479–508 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bezrukova K, Spell CS, Caldwell D, Burger JM. 2016. A multilevel perspective on faultlines: differentiating the effects between group- and organizational-level faultlines. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:186–107 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bezrukova K, Thatcher S, Jehn KA, Spell CS. 2012. The effects of alignments: examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:177–92 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boone C, Van Olffen W, Van Witteloostuijn A, De Brabander B. 2004. The genesis of top management team diversity: selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaper publishing, 1970–94. Acad. Manag. J. 47:5633–56 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brewer MB. 1991. The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17:5475–82 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bunderson JS, Reagans RE. 2011. Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organ. Sci. 22:51182–94 [Google Scholar]
  12. Buyl T, Boone C, Hendriks W, Matthyssens P. 2011. Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: the moderating role of CEO characteristics. J. Manag. Stud. 48:1151–77 [Google Scholar]
  13. Byrne DE. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm 11 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  14. Cannella AA, Park JH, Lee HU. 2008. Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Acad. Manag. J. 51:4768–84 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cappelli P, Sherer PD. 1991. The missing role of context in OB—the need for a meso-level approach. Res. Organ. Behav. 13:55–110 [Google Scholar]
  16. Carpenter MA, Geletkanycz MA, Sanders WG. 2004. Upper echelons research revisited: antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. J. Manag. 30:6749–78 [Google Scholar]
  17. Carson JB, Tesluk PE, Marrone JA. 2007. Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 50:51217–34 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carter DA, D'Souza F, Simkins BJ, Simpson WG. 2010. The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 18:5396–414 [Google Scholar]
  19. Certo ST, Lester RH, Dalton CM, Dalton DR. 2006. Top management teams, strategy and financial performance: a meta‐analytic examination. J. Manag. Stud. 43:4813–39 [Google Scholar]
  20. Chatman JA, Polzer JT, Barsade SG, Neale MA. 1998. Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Adm. Sci. Q. 43:749–80 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chatman JA, Spataro SE. 2005. Using self-categorization theory to understand relational demography-based variations in people's responsiveness to organizational culture. Acad. Manag. J. 48:2321–31 [Google Scholar]
  22. Chattopadhyay P, Tluchowska M, George E. 2004. Identifying the ingroup: a closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29:2180–202 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cleveland JN, Festa RM, Montgomery L. 1988. Applicant pool composition and job perceptions: impact on decisions regarding an older applicant. J. Vocat. Behav. 32:112–25 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cox T. 1994. Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler [Google Scholar]
  25. Cox T. 2001. Creating the Multicultural Organization: A Strategy for Capturing the Power of Diversity San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  26. de Kwaadsteniet EW, van Dijk E. 2010. Social status as a cue for tacit coordination. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46:3515–24 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dezső CL, Ross DG, Uribe J. 2016. Is there an implicit quota on women in top management? A large‐sample statistical analysis. Strateg. Manag. J. 37:198–115 [Google Scholar]
  28. DiTomaso N, Post C, Smith DR, Farris GF, Cordero R. 2007. Effects of structural position on allocation and evaluation decisions for scientists and engineers in industrial RD. Adm. Sci. Q. 52:2175–207 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dobbin F, Schrage D, Kalev A. 2015. Rage against the iron cage: the varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. Am. Soc. Rev. 80:51014–44 [Google Scholar]
  30. Druskat VU, Wheeler JV. 2003. Managing from the boundary: the effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Acad. Manag. J. 46:4435–57 [Google Scholar]
  31. Eagly AH, Steffen VJ. 1984. Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:4735–54 [Google Scholar]
  32. Edelman LE, Fuller SR, Mara-Drita I. 2001. Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. Am. J. Sociol. 106:61589–1641 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ellemers N, Wilke H, van Knippenberg A. 1993. Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 64:5766–78 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ely RJ. 1994. The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Adm. Sci. Q. 39:203–38 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ely RJ. 1995. The power in demography: women's social constructions of gender identity at work. Acad. Manag. J. 38:3589–634 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ely RJ, Thomas DA. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Adm. Sci. Q. 46:2229–73 [Google Scholar]
  37. Foss NJ, Minbaeva DB, Pedersen T, Reinholt M. 2009. Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: how job design matters. Hum. Resour. Manag. 48:6871–93 [Google Scholar]
  38. Grant AM. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32:2393–417 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hambrick DC. 2007. Upper echelons theory: an update. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32:2334–43 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hambrick DC, Cho TS, Chen MJ. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms' competitive moves. Adm. Sci. Q. 4:659–84 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S. 1987. Managerial discretion: a bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Res. Organ. Behav. 9:369–406 [Google Scholar]
  42. Harrison DA, Klein KJ. 2007. What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32:41199–228 [Google Scholar]
  43. Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP. 1998. Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad. Manag. J. 41:196–107 [Google Scholar]
  44. Heider F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  45. Helfat CE, Harris D, Wolfson PJ. 2006. The pipeline to the top: women and men in the top executive ranks of US corporations. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 20:442–64 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hirsh EC, Kornrich S. 2008. The context of discrimination: workplace conditions, institutional environments, and sex and race discrimination charges. Am. J. Sociol. 113:51394–432 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hogg MA. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5:3184–200 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hogg MA, Terry DI. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25:1121–40 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hollander EP. 2009. Inclusive Leadership: The Essential Leader-Follower Relationship New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoobler JM, Masterson CR, Nkomo SM, Michel EJ. 2016. The business case for women leaders: meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward. J. Manag. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206316628643 [Google Scholar]
  51. Horwitz SK, Horwitz IB. 2007. The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team demography. J. Manag. 33:6987–1015 [Google Scholar]
  52. House RJ, Rousseau DM, Thomas-Hunt M. 1995. The third paradigm: meso organizational research comes to age. Res. Organ. Behav. 17:71–114 [Google Scholar]
  53. Humphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. App. Psychol. 92:1332–56 [Google Scholar]
  54. Jackman MR. 1994. The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  55. Jackson SE, Brett JF, Sessa VI, Cooper DM, Julin JA, Peyronnin K. 1991. Some differences make a difference: individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 76:5675–89 [Google Scholar]
  56. Jackson SE, Joshi A. 2011. Work team diversity. APA Handbook of IO Psychology 1 Building and Developing the Organization651–86 Washington, DC: APA [Google Scholar]
  57. Jackson SE, Joshi A, Erhardt NL. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. J. Manag. 29:801–30 [Google Scholar]
  58. Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. 1999. Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Adm. Sci. Q. 44:4741–63 [Google Scholar]
  59. Jeong SH, Harrison D. 2017. Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating: meta-analytic outcomes of females as CEOs and TMT members. Acad. Manag. J. 60:41219–52 [Google Scholar]
  60. Jiang Y, Jackson SE, Shaw JB, Chung Y. 2012. The consequences of educational specialty and nationality faultlines for project teams. Small Group Res 43:513–644 [Google Scholar]
  61. Johns G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31:2386–408 [Google Scholar]
  62. Joshi A. 2006. The influence of organizational demography on the external networking behavior of teams. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31:3583–95 [Google Scholar]
  63. Joshi A. 2014. By whom and when is women's expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Admin. Sci. Q. 59:2207–39 [Google Scholar]
  64. Joshi A, Dencker J, Franz G, Martocchio J. 2010. Unpacking generational identities in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35:392–414 [Google Scholar]
  65. Joshi A, Knight AP. 2015. Who defers to whom and why? Dual pathways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 58:159–84 [Google Scholar]
  66. Joshi A, Liao H, Jackson SE. 2006. Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales performance and pay. Acad. Manag. J. 49:3459–81 [Google Scholar]
  67. Joshi A, Liao H, Roh H. 2011. Bridging domains in workplace demography research: a review and reconceptualization. J. Manag. 37:2521–52 [Google Scholar]
  68. Joshi A, Roh H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta-analytic review. Acad. Manag. J. 52:3599–627 [Google Scholar]
  69. Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA. 2004. A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Polit. Psychol. 25:6881–919 [Google Scholar]
  70. Keck SL. 1997. Top management team structure: differential effects by environmental context. Organ. Sci. 8:2143–56 [Google Scholar]
  71. Keeves GD, Westphal JD, McDonald ML. 2017. Those closest wield the sharpest knife: how ingratiation leads to resentment and social undermining of the CEO. Adm. Sci. Q. 62:484–523 [Google Scholar]
  72. Keltner D, Van Kleef GA, Chen S, Kraus MW. 2008. A reciprocal influence model of social power: emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:151–92 [Google Scholar]
  73. Kirkman BL, Rosen B, Tesluk PE, Gibson CB. 2004. The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Acad. Manag. J. 47:2175–92 [Google Scholar]
  74. Kozlowski SWJ, Klein JK. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations KJ Klein, SWJ Kozlowski 3–90 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  75. Lau DC, Murnighan JK. 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23:2325–40 [Google Scholar]
  76. Lawrence BS. 1988. New wrinkles in the theory of age: demography, norms, and performance ratings. Acad. Manag. J. 31:2309–37 [Google Scholar]
  77. Linnehan F, Konrad AM. 1999. Diluting diversity: implications for intergroup inequality in organizations. J. Manag. Inq. 8:4399–414 [Google Scholar]
  78. Magee JC, Galinsky AD. 2008. Social hierarchy: the self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2:1351–98 [Google Scholar]
  79. Maloney MM, Bresman H, Zellmer-Bruhn ME, Beaver GR. 2016. Contextualization and context theorizing in teams research: a look back and a path forward. Acad. Manag. Ann. 10:1891–942 [Google Scholar]
  80. Mannix E, Neale MA. 2005. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychol. Sci. Pub. Interest 6:231–55 [Google Scholar]
  81. Martins LL, Milliken FJ, Wiesenfeld BM, Salgado SR. 2003. Racioethnic diversity and group members' experiences: the role of the racioethnic diversity of the organizational context. Group Organ. Manag. 28:175–106 [Google Scholar]
  82. Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:535–46 [Google Scholar]
  83. Mitchell R, Boyle B, Parker V, Giles M, Chiang V, Joyce P. 2015. Managing inclusiveness and diversity in teams: how leader inclusiveness affects performance through status and team identity. Hum. Res. Manag. 54:2217–39 [Google Scholar]
  84. Mor Barak ME, Cherin DA, Berkman S. 1998. Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 34:182–104 [Google Scholar]
  85. Mullin BA, Hogg MA. 1999. Motivations for group membership: the role of subjective importance and uncertainty reduction. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21:291–102 [Google Scholar]
  86. Neuman GA, Wright J. 1999. Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability. J. Appl. Psychol. 84:3376–89 [Google Scholar]
  87. Nielsen S, Huse M. 2010. The contribution of women on boards of directors: going beyond the surface. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 18:2136–48 [Google Scholar]
  88. Nishii LH. 2013. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Acad. Manag. J. 56:61754–74 [Google Scholar]
  89. North MS, Fiske ST. 2015. Modern attitudes toward older adults in the aging world: a cross-cultural meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 141:5993–1021 [Google Scholar]
  90. Ou AY, Seo JJ, Choi D, Hom P. 2016. When can humble top executives retain middle managers? The moderating role of top management team faultlines. Acad. Manag. J. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.1072. In press [Google Scholar]
  91. Pearsall MJ, Ellis AP. 2006. The effects of critical team member assertiveness on team performance and satisfaction. J. Manag. 32:4575–94 [Google Scholar]
  92. Perry EL, Finkelstein LM. 1999. Toward a broader view of age discrimination in employment-related decisions: a joint consideration of organizational factors and cognitive processes. Hum. Resouc. Manag. Rev. 9:121–49 [Google Scholar]
  93. Phillips KW. 2003. The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: the importance of congruence. Pers. Soc. Psych. Bull. 29:13–13 [Google Scholar]
  94. Reskin BF, McBrier DB, Kmec JA. 1999. The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:1335–61 [Google Scholar]
  95. Richard OC, Murthi BP, Ismail K. 2007. The impact of racial diversity on intermediate and long‐term performance: the moderating role of environmental context. Strategic Manag. J. 28:121213–33 [Google Scholar]
  96. Ridgeway C. 1991. The social construction of status value: gender and other nominal characteristics. Soc. Forces 70:367–86 [Google Scholar]
  97. Ridgeway CL, Smith-Lovin L. 1999. The gender system and interaction. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:1191–216 [Google Scholar]
  98. Rosette AS, Tost LP. 2010. Agentic women and communal leadership: how role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:2221–35 [Google Scholar]
  99. Schneider B. 1987. The people make the place. Pers. Psychol. 40:3437–53 [Google Scholar]
  100. Schneider B, Goldstein HW, Smith DB. 1995. The ASA framework: an update. Pers. Psychol. 48:4747–73 [Google Scholar]
  101. Srikanth K, Harvey S, Peterson R. 2016. A dynamic perspective on diverse teams: moving from the dual-process model to a dynamic coordination-based model of diverse team performance. Acad. Manag. Ann. 10:1453–93 [Google Scholar]
  102. Srivastava A, Bartol KM, Locke EA. 2006. Empowering leadership in management teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 49:61239–51 [Google Scholar]
  103. Tajfel H. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  104. Tajfel H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 33:11–39 [Google Scholar]
  105. Tajfel H, Turner JC. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflicts. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations WG Austin, S Worchel 33–47 Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole [Google Scholar]
  106. Thatcher S, Patel PC. 2011. Demographic faultlines: a meta-analysis of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:61119–39 [Google Scholar]
  107. Tiedens LZ, Chow RM, Unzueta MM. 2007. Complementary contrast and assimilation: interpersonal theory and the social functions of contrast and assimilation effects. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 93:3402–14 [Google Scholar]
  108. Tiedens LZ, Jimenez MC. 2003. Assimilation for affiliation and contrast for control: complementary self-construals. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 85:61049–61 [Google Scholar]
  109. Tuggle CS, Schnatterly K, Johnson RA. 2010. Attention patterns in the boardroom: how board composition and processes affect discussion of entrepreneurial issues. Acad. Manag. J. 53:3550–71 [Google Scholar]
  110. Van der Vegt GS, De Jong SB, Bunderson JS, Molleman E. 2010. Power asymmetry and learning in teams: the moderating role of performance feedback. Organ. Sci. 21:2347–61 [Google Scholar]
  111. van Dick R, van Knippenberg D, Hägele S, Guillaume YR, Brodbeck FC. 2008. Group diversity and group identification: the moderating role of diversity beliefs. Hum. Relat. 61:101463–92 [Google Scholar]
  112. van Dijk H, van Engen ML, van Knippenberg D. 2012. Defying conventional wisdom: a meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 119:138–53 [Google Scholar]
  113. van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CKW, Homan AC. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:1008–22 [Google Scholar]
  114. van Knippenberg D, van Ginkel WP, Homan AC. 2013. Diversity mindsets and the performance of diverse teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 121:2183–93 [Google Scholar]
  115. Westphal JD, Zajac EJ. 1998. The symbolic management of stockholders: corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Adm. Sci. Q. 43:127–53 [Google Scholar]
  116. Wharton AS. 1992. The social construction of gender and race in organizations: a social identity and group mobilization perspective. Res. Sociol. Organ. 101992:55–84 [Google Scholar]
  117. Williams KY, O'Reilly CA III. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. Res. Organ. Behav. 20:77–140 [Google Scholar]
  118. Xue Y, Bradley J, Liang H. 2011. Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing. J. Knowledge Manag. 15:2299–312 [Google Scholar]
  119. Yukl G. 2012. Effective leadership behavior: what we know and what questions need more attention. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 26:466–85 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062421
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062421
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error