1254Diversity Plume CreativeDigitalVisionGetty Image.docx

125
4Diversity
Plume Creative/DigitalVision/Getty Images
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Describe changes in past and present concepts of workplace
diversity.
• State the case for workplace diversity.
• Identify barriers to constructive diversity and the ways in
which these are interrelated.
• Assess various forms of diversity within workplace groups.
• Outline strategies for positively managing diversity in the
workplace.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 125 8/19/16 9:35 AM
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
Introduction
Pretest

1. Diversity in today’s workplace is a response to the need to
equalize job opportunities for
minorities. T/F
2. Diversity adds little to organizational performance; it is
simply a fact of life in the
contemporary workplace. T/F
3. Stereotypes are negative preconceptions we hold about other
team members. T/F
4. Diversity characteristics are readily observable. T/F
5. Assumed differences that are false are just as impactful as
actual diversity between
members. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Marni is a team leader at a large, international software
company. Her team is composed
of five other individuals who were each brought in from
different international offices. In
addition to their diverse personal backgrounds—in terms of
race, culture, and education
level—each member of the team was specifically recruited for
their particular KSAs.
Before they started working as a group, Marni took the time to
meet individually with
team members to gain insight into their background as well as
their skills and abilities.
She also gauged their work preferences—for example, what
types of projects they enjoy
and how they like to accomplish their work. When they were

ready to begin working
together, Marni introduced team members to each other,
highlighting their personal
experiences and skills. This helped clarify everyone’s value to
the group and made all
members feel equally important, despite the diversity of their
individual experiences and
KSAs.
Marni observed her team closely during their initial months
working together. She soon
became concerned over the number of interpersonal conflicts
occurring between team
members. While Marni attempted to diffuse these conflicts and
foster a more collabora-
tive environment, her efforts to set a positive example and
demonstrate effective conflict
resolution were not working. The team members continued to
struggle because of their
vast differences, both personal and KSA related.
Marni’s observations led her to believe that her teammates
lacked cross-cultural self-
efficacy, meaning they did not believe in their own ability to
interact with people from
other cultures. This perceived lack of ability was contributing to
the frequency of inter-
personal conflicts. Having identified what she thought was the
root cause of the problem,
Marni asked herself how she could make the team members
more confident in their own
cross-cultural abilities, as well as more comfortable with each
other.
After asking this question, it became obvious to Marni that her
team only interacted

formally, during meetings and project discussions. She decided
that the team members
needed to really get to know one another—not just be aware of
each other’s personal
accomplishments and work-related skills sets, but become well
versed in each other’s
interests. She was hoping team members could find common
ground amid their diver-
sity. This could foster a feeling of belonging and allow the team
to move past its ongoing
destructive conflicts.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 126 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint
Marni decided that an informal setting could promote such
interactions, so she set up
an on-site team lunch where members were discouraged from
talking about their work
project. Marni hoped that limiting talk about work would allow
the team members to
open up and discover their similarities—and indeed, this is what
happened. The interac-
tions during the informal lunch were more relaxed than those
during team meetings,
and team members asked each other personal questions and
shared stories. The relaxed
atmosphere allowed for a sense of belonging and
interconnectedness to develop.

Marni made these informal lunch gatherings a regular
occurrence. Over the months that
followed, she also developed opportunities for the team to work
off-site together. Slowly,
the interpersonal conflicts dissipated. Disagreements became
more constructive in nature
as the team members became more open to each other’s diverse
viewpoints.
Diversity plays a major role in today’s workplace. As of 2010
there were more than
39 million immigrants living in the United States, and 68% of
these actively participate
in the workforce (Grieco et al., 2012). Overseas, the highly
diverse population of South
Africa—increasingly popular as a business process outsourcing
location—has earned it
the epitaph of “Rainbow Nation” (Reichard, Dollwet, & Louw-
Potgieter, 2014). But what
does an increasingly diverse workforce mean for small groups,
teams, and organiza-
tions? It all depends on the type of diversity involved, and how
it is managed.
The effects of diversity are notoriously double-sided when it
comes to group and team
performance. Diversity of expertise and perspective enhance the
prime benefit of
working together—which is to combine material and human
resources. Yet diversity of
background and worldview also make it harder for group
members to understand each
other, which can potentially threaten their ability to work
together. In Chapter 4 we
explore workplace diversity from a contemporary viewpoint and
examine the different

effects of cultural and skill-based diversity. We also highlight
diversity challenges and
outline strategies for managing group diversity to achieve
positive outcomes.
4.1 Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint
As we learned in Chapter 1, perceived similarities between
individuals are a major factor in
the group identification process. Still, no two group members
are truly identical. Diversity is
the degree of variation in group members’ qualities, interests,
and needs. Diversity can range
from very high—as in cross-functional, virtual, special project
teams brought together from
across a multinational organization—to very low—as in a group
gathered based on similari-
ties to test market reactions from a very specific client base.
Although groups with extremely
low diversity are labeled homogenous, all groups possess at
least some level of diversity.
With the ease of travel, the global reach of marketing and sales,
the omnipresence of online
communication and virtual groups, and an increasingly global
mindset among both individu-
als and organizations, diversity is a very real and influential
factor in our personal and profes-
sional lives. Diversity is more than a simple side effect of the
technological and social changes
associated with modernity, however. The United States has a
long (albeit complicated) history
as a diverse nation. Since the early 20th century, the term
melting pot has been used to
Section 4.1

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 127 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Section 4.1 Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint
describe the ideal in which people of different nationalities,
cultures, social backgrounds, and
ethnicities come together to forge a common (uniform)
American identity (Pluralism Project,
n.d.). More recently, terms like mosaic or kaleidoscope have
been used to highlight a more
contemporary ideal in which diverse peoples mix within
American culture but are free to
retain some distinctions.
The perception of diversity within the U.S.
workplace has also experienced a shift.
Contemporary diversity is not viewed the
way it once was, nor does the term impart
the same meaning it did in the past. Begin-
ning in the late 1960s, as a result of civil
rights legislation, U.S. employers began
adopting equal opportunity measures to
address inequality and discrimination
against individuals based on gender, race,
ethnicity, nationality, and minority status.
The most notable of these measures was
affirmative action (National Conference
of State Legislatures, 2014). In response
to the legislation, employers began to
fill racial and minority quotas in the
workplace. The sudden rise in employee

diversity injected instant complexity and
increased potential for misunderstand-
ing and conflict in the workplace. This
spurred a movement of political correct-
ness in the 1980s and 1990s. Diversity
within organizations during these years
was predominantly focused on increasing
the numbers of individuals with specific
demographic characteristics and then
training people to skirt politely around
individual differences and their newly
diverse working conditions.
Today workplace diversity no longer centers on
antidiscrimination compliance. The new
focus for diversity in groups and teams revolves around the
variation in specific traits, skills,
experiences, and qualifications that can increase the
performance of a group in general or
on a specific project. This new focus came as a result of
contemporary organizations operat-
ing in a global work environment fueled by multinational
corporations. Following the eco-
nomic downturns at the start of the millennium and the collapse
of the U.S. housing bubble in
2007, organizations began positively transforming the need to
cut costs and downsize their
workforce. They employed the concept of rightsizing, or
functioning effectively with a smaller
employee base (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992; Manz &
Sims, 1987). Employee diversity
in traits, skills, experiences, and qualifications became critical
to enacting this concept. The
rise of groups and teams in organizations, and of teamwork-
centered practices, has given
diversity a new set of characteristics. While superficial

differences (such as age, gender, or
University of Iowa Libraries. Special Collections Department
The term melting pot was used to describe how
people of various nationalities and cultures came
together to forge a common American identity.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 128 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Diversity
Developing
Mutual
Understanding
Cultivating
Adaptability &
Innovation
Maximizing
Human
Resources
Section 4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity
ethnicity) are not entirely discounted, they take a backseat to
task- and performance-related

diversity in group member selection, team building, and
organizational hiring.
In the next section, we examine the case for diversity in the
workplace.
4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity
Diversity is a key element in maintaining organizational
effectiveness. It engages new per-
spectives, enhances product and service development, and
positively or negatively impacts
employee interactions, productivity, satisfaction, and turnover,
as well as the ongoing devel-
opment of organizational learning and culture (Rašticová &
Senichev, 2011; Senichev, 2013a,
2013b). But how exactly does workplace diversity achieve all of
this? It does so by addressing
three core needs in contemporary organizations: developing
mutual understanding, maxi-
mizing human resources, and cultivating ability and innovation
(see Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1: Diversity and core organizational needs
Contemporary organizations look to diversity to address three
core needs.
Diversity
Developing
Mutual
Understanding
Cultivating
Adaptability &

Innovation
Maximizing
Human
Resources
Let’s look more closely at the three core organizational needs
that diversity addresses.
Developing Mutual Understanding
Diversity is an increasingly inevitable factor in today’s
interactive and operational settings. As
such, it cannot be ignored. Organizations need to understand,
attract, expand on, and success-
fully interact with an increasingly diverse customer and client
base. Diverse group and team
memberships are key to developing mutual understanding
between an organization and its
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 129 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Section 4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity
clients, whether these represent specific individuals or entire
markets. Developing mutual
understanding allows companies to:
• achieve effective coordination and collaboration between
individual employees and

between and within various groups, teams, organizational
departments, and levels
of hierarchy;
• identify and attract new markets and expand their customer or
client base;
• effectively serve, communicate, and interact with new and
existing customers and
clients; and
• engender fellowship among employees and clients alike and
build trust and loyalty
toward the organization; this can be achieved by internally
generating organiza-
tional cohesiveness via a corporate identity infused with team
spirit and externally
fostering customer loyalty and goodwill.
Maximizing Human Resources
In Chapter 1, we outlined the benefits of and tendency toward
efficiency or effectiveness in
work groups and teams. Of course, the best performance
outcomes occur when we break with
“either/or” thinking and find a balance between efficiency and
effectiveness. It is by realizing
their potential for achieving this balance that diverse groups
outperform homogenous ones.
One of the key advantages of working in groups is the potential
to access a broad scope of col-
lective KSAs and experience; indeed, this is the fundamental
concept behind the now popular
use of cross-functional teams. Today’s organizational strategies
call for making the most out
of a minimal workforce by capitalizing on a diverse range of
employee capabilities.

In cases that involve complex problem solving and decision
making, two heads really are bet-
ter than one. Diverse groups tend to generate more effective and
higher quality decisions and
solutions because they can access a wider range of relevant
knowledge, viewpoints, experi-
ence, and skills (Leonard, Levine, & Joshi, 2004). This also
mitigates group tendency toward
dysfunctional process behavior such as groupthink, which we
address in Chapter 5.
Cultivating Adaptability and Innovation
In nature, genetic diversity within a group—such as a herd of
elephants—is beneficial
because, in crisis, diverse groups are far more adaptable and
resilient than homogenous ones
(Senichev, 2013b; Kreitz, 2008). For example, a herd with a
diverse gene pool would have a
better chance of surviving a deadly hereditary disease than a
herd that lacked genetic diver-
sity. This adaptability and resilience gives the diverse group
stability. In this case stability
refers to more than the ability to maintain a status quo; rather, it
is the capacity to survive
and thrive amid changing conditions. The ability to adapt and
change is just as critical for
contemporary organizations. Diverse groups and teams have an
inherently broader range of
KSAs and experience to draw from in response to changing
circumstances.
As Indra Nooyi noted upon becoming chief executive officer
(CEO) of PepsiCo, people are an
organizations’ biggest asset (Aspen Institute, 2014). Great ideas
come from people. Diversifi-

cation in employee background, perspective, experience, and
knowledge promotes creativity
and innovation because it fosters more diverse ideas. Diverse
teams are more likely to chal-
lenge existing ideas and assumptions, apply multiple
perspectives to identify potential prob-
lems, and develop more comprehensive and better justified
strategies and solutions through
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 130 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Section 4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity
debate (Agrawal, 2012). Meanwhile, groups with low diversity
tend to more easily find and
hold common perceptions and viewpoints regarding the
competitive environment, come up
with fewer strategic options, and are more prone to solutions
that essentially regenerate
existing strategies.
While diversity within groups has tremendous benefits, there
are also challenges associated
with diversity among group members. We discuss these
challenges and barriers to construc-
tive diversity in the next section.
4.3 The Downside to Member Diversity
The downside to engaging diverse ideas and viewpoints is that
team members are more likely
to differ in their preferences for solutions and strategies. The

inability to agree and collectively
commit to a specific course of action can delay the group’s
progress and lower individual
motivation and effort (Mello & Ruckes, 2006). The very
differences that broaden the group’s
capacity for adaptability, innovation, and effective performance
can act as a divisive force
and foster separation, miscommunication, and conflict between
team members (Harrison &
Klein, 2007; Polzer, 2008).
Group diversity is often portrayed as a double-edged sword
because it heightens the poten-
tial for significant gains and losses in the performance process
(Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007;
Pieterse et al., 2013). On the one hand, diverse perspectives
enhance an organization’s abil-
ity to identify opportunities; rethink and redefine business
strategies, practices, tasks, pro-
cesses, products, and services; and interact with both new and
existing markets (Agrawal,
2012). On the other hand, poorly managed diversity can stunt
developmental processes such
as identification and cohesion. This can lower employee
commitment and satisfaction and
decrease task-related process speeds, which impede the group’s
capacity for effective action
and response (Agrawal, 2012).
While diversity broadens the range of perspectives and
expertise, it also increases the poten-
tial for miscommunication and conflict between group members
(Agrawal, 2012). Dysfunc-
tional dynamics are often attributed to internal cognitive
barriers—or limiting preconcep-
tions such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination—that

are activated by the differences
we perceive between ourselves and others (Johnson & Johnson,
1999). These can, and do,
occur in any setting in which we interact with others and are
made aware of differences of any
type. Whether conscious or unconscious, these barriers affect
interactions between individu-
als, group members, and different groups or subgroups.
In-Groups and Out-Groups
Internal cognitive barriers are associated with the concept of in-
group-out-group bias. The
terms in-group and out-group may conjure up high school–style
images of popular versus
unpopular groups. There is a reason for that. Although in the
social sciences in-group and
out-group refer to those groups we do and do not belong to, we
have a natural preference and
positive bias toward our own groups over others. This is caused
by two basic factors:
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 131 8/19/16 9:35 AM
• As identification occurs, we accept our group as an extension
of self and a legitimate
influence on our self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005).
• Maintaining positive self-esteem is a basic human need that
provides the underlying

motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon,
Greenberg, Arndt, &
Schimel, 2004).
Through shared social identity, we develop a sense of “us-ness”
that then dictates the bound-
ary between our in-groups and out-groups. The development of
an “us” and “them” mentality
invites comparison between in-groups and out-groups, and our
need for positive self-esteem
demands that we perceive our own groups as preferable. The
tendency to perceive the mem-
bers, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to
the members, products, and
efforts of out-groups is known as in-group-out-group bias. The
desire to champion our own
group can lead us to denigrate others, particularly when we
associate them with negative
stereotypes.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes represent conscious and unconscious beliefs about
the attributes of whole social
categories or groups and their individual members (Ashmore &
DelBoca, 1981; Jussim, Har-
ber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). When we stereotype, we
categorize. We take the people
or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin
with information about other
people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as
educational level, occupation,
or age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of
cognitive economy; for example,
we might assume that a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty
much the same as another.
Stereotypes we hold regarding people, however, are much more

significant in that they can
profoundly impact our interactions.
While not all stereotypes are negative—such as the stereotype
that all Asians are good at
math—they are all limiting. When we stereotype, we see group
members as more alike than
they really are. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing
on obvious similarities or by
attributing similarities without basis in fact. Within a specific
group or team, for example,
members who share obvious similarities such as gender, culture,
or ethnicity may be per-
ceived as similar even if their actual background or personality
traits are quite different.
When we engage in in stereotypical thinking we
deindividualize, and in some cases dehuman-
ize, the people around us.
When presented with information that runs contrary to existing
biases and stereotypes, peo-
ple may alter their generalizations, at least to some degree.
However, we are likely to defend
our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the
exception to the rule (Jussim
et al., 2005). What’s more, our perception of others is often
more selective than accurate.
Expectations based on stereotypes can affect our perception of
other group members and
how we interpret what they say and do (Jost & Kruglanski,
2002). Studies on how teachers’
expectations affect their grading, for example, showed a distinct
variation in how a student
was evaluated based on whether the reviewers were told that she
came from a lower or
middle-class background (see Darley & Gross, 1983; Jussim,

1989; Williams, 1976). When we
hold conscious or unconscious stereotypes about other group
members, we often see what
we expect to see, ignore discrepancies, and selectively make
note of evidence that confirms
our stereotypical beliefs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jussim et al.,
2005).
Concepts in Action: Stereotypical Thinking
Based on appearance, which one of these individuals was the
head of a major American
automaker?
Answer: Both. That’s Mary Barra on the left and Dan Akerson
on the right. If you recognized
Barra or Akerson, this question might have seemed easy to you.
But look again, and be honest:
If you did not know who they were, what career choices would
you expect them to make—or
not make—based on the way they look?
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
for LinkedIn
Paul Warner/Getty Images
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 132 8/19/16 9:35 AM
• As identification occurs, we accept our group as an extension

of self and a legitimate
influence on our self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005).
• Maintaining positive self-esteem is a basic human need that
provides the underlying
motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon,
Greenberg, Arndt, &
Schimel, 2004).
Through shared social identity, we develop a sense of “us-ness”
that then dictates the bound-
ary between our in-groups and out-groups. The development of
an “us” and “them” mentality
invites comparison between in-groups and out-groups, and our
need for positive self-esteem
demands that we perceive our own groups as preferable. The
tendency to perceive the mem-
bers, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to
the members, products, and
efforts of out-groups is known as in-group-out-group bias. The
desire to champion our own
group can lead us to denigrate others, particularly when we
associate them with negative
stereotypes.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes represent conscious and unconscious beliefs about
the attributes of whole social
categories or groups and their individual members (Ashmore &
DelBoca, 1981; Jussim, Har-
ber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). When we stereotype, we
categorize. We take the people
or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin
with information about other
people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as
educational level, occupation,

or age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of
cognitive economy; for example,
we might assume that a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty
much the same as another.
Stereotypes we hold regarding people, however, are much more
significant in that they can
profoundly impact our interactions.
While not all stereotypes are negative—such as the stereotype
that all Asians are good at
math—they are all limiting. When we stereotype, we see group
members as more alike than
they really are. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing
on obvious similarities or by
attributing similarities without basis in fact. Within a specific
group or team, for example,
members who share obvious similarities such as gender, culture,
or ethnicity may be per-
ceived as similar even if their actual background or personality
traits are quite different.
When we engage in in stereotypical thinking we
deindividualize, and in some cases dehuman-
ize, the people around us.
When presented with information that runs contrary to existing
biases and stereotypes, peo-
ple may alter their generalizations, at least to some degree.
However, we are likely to defend
our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the
exception to the rule (Jussim
et al., 2005). What’s more, our perception of others is often
more selective than accurate.
Expectations based on stereotypes can affect our perception of
other group members and
how we interpret what they say and do (Jost & Kruglanski,
2002). Studies on how teachers’

expectations affect their grading, for example, showed a distinct
variation in how a student
was evaluated based on whether the reviewers were told that she
came from a lower or
middle-class background (see Darley & Gross, 1983; Jussim,
1989; Williams, 1976). When we
hold conscious or unconscious stereotypes about other group
members, we often see what
we expect to see, ignore discrepancies, and selectively make
note of evidence that confirms
our stereotypical beliefs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jussim et al.,
2005).
Concepts in Action: Stereotypical Thinking
Based on appearance, which one of these individuals was the
head of a major American
automaker?
Answer: Both. That’s Mary Barra on the left and Dan Akerson
on the right. If you recognized
Barra or Akerson, this question might have seemed easy to you.
But look again, and be honest:
If you did not know who they were, what career choices would
you expect them to make—or
not make—based on the way they look?
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
for LinkedIn
Paul Warner/Getty Images
While stereotypes tend to flatten distinctions between members
of out-groups, they exagger-
ate differences between in-groups and out-groups. For instance,
members of a rival company
may be portrayed as particularly lazy or unethical, while

members of one’s own company are
automatically characterized as hard-working and ethical.
Denigrating those in the out-group
by emphasizing their differences and ignoring their similarities
with in-group members rein-
forces the idea that the out-group is inferior and bolsters the
solidarity and unity of those in
the in-group. When diverse members must work together,
however, this negative in-group-
out-group dynamic can seriously demoralize an entire group or
team. When negative stereo-
types move from expectation to prejudgment, prejudice and
discrimination occur.
Prejudice
Prejudice represents unjustified negative attitudes toward others
based solely on their mem-
bership in a particular group or subgroup. Prejudice sustains a
superior us versus inferior
them belief system that becomes ingrained in how we feel about
other people. When we dis-
like, take offense with, or exclude someone based on attributes
such as ethnicity, national-
ity, sexual orientation, or gender, we are engaging in prejudice.
Although in popular usage
ethnicity refers to differences in genetic background, the term
ethnic refers to any distinc-
tive characteristic held in common by a group of people,
including language, culture, religion,
race, customs, orientations, and physical characteristics.
Related to in-group-out-group bias,
ethnocentrism refers to our tendency to regard ethnic
characteristics associated with our
own groups as superior, or more “natural” and “correct” than
those associated with others.
Ethnocentrism is a major cause of prejudice.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 133 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Ethnocentrism skews our judgment when dealing with others
because, in effect, we use our
own norms, standards, and values to measure the worth of
others’ norms, standards, and val-
ues, rather than judging them from an objective standpoint
(Reichard et al., 2014). This can
be especially problematic when it occurs within groups. If we
do not know or understand the
context in which unfamiliar norms were developed, we may
simply disregard them as use-
less or unimportant, potentially offending fellow group
members. Group members who feel
rejected are typically less motivated to understand and adapt to
the group’s shared context
(Earley & Ang, 2003). This becomes true on both sides of the
equation if the offended group
members respond with aggression or rejection of their own.
Prejudice caused by ethnocentrism can take on many forms.
Some of the most common
include:
• racism, or prejudice directed toward members of a particular
race or ethnicity;
• sexism, or prejudice directed toward members of a particular
gender; and

• ageism, or prejudice directed toward members of a certain age
range, usually
older adults, but sometimes directed in the reverse, from older
to younger group
members.
Ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, and ageism are often instilled
and perpetuated by cultural
conditioning. As children, and throughout our lifetime, we are
conditioned to conform and
respond positively to the culture in which we are raised. This
includes our national culture
as well as our own family’s beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral
norms. As we grow older, we are
also influenced by the cultural norms attached to the major
secondary groups in our lives.
Because of this conditioning, we tend to respond negatively to,
be confused by, or question the
“correctness” of attitudes, thoughts, or behaviors that fall
outside our cultural norms.
In his classic treatise, The Nature of Prejudice, psychologist
Gordon Allport (1954/1979)
presents a vivid example of the effects of cultural conditioning
on our perception. Recount-
ing an experiment conducted with colleague Leo Postman
(Allport & Postman, 1947), All-
port describes seating Caucasian study participants in a circle
and then presenting just
one individual with a drawing to briefly study before beginning
the round. The drawing
depicted White people of varying genders and attitudes riding in
a subway car, watching an
angry White man with a switchblade threatening a conciliatory
Black man. Without showing

the drawing to anyone else, the first participant had to briefly
describe the drawing to the
next person, who then described what he or she heard to the
next person, and so on, until it
reached the end of the line. In the actual drawing, a White man
held a razor. Long before the
information had completed traveling the circle, the razor had
somehow jumped to the hand
of the Black man.
Everyone experiences or is subject to prejudice at some time.
Unless we experience preju-
diced thoughts or feelings all the time, having a few here and
there does not automatically
mean we are racist, sexist, or ageist. Even if we consciously
reject these negative attitudes,
cultural conditioning leaves its traces, like a lingering memory
or bad habit. As with all con-
ditioned responses, it takes time, commitment, and conscious
effort to overrule culturally
ingrained prejudice. Of course, some people choose to go the
other way; instead of conquer-
ing their prejudice, they act on it. When we act on prejudice, we
exhibit discrimination.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 134 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Discrimination
Discrimination refers to negative, unfavorable, or harmful

treatment of others based on ste-
reotypical thinking and prejudice (Pagura, 2012). Examples of
discrimination in the work-
place may include when someone is:
• denied equal opportunities or benefits;
• overlooked or refused promotion or reward;
• unfairly chastised, demoted, fired, or excluded from groups;
and
• declined for hire based on stereotyping and prejudice.
Consider, for example, two individuals, one man and one
woman, who are applying for the
same job. Aside from gender, they are equal in all respects (that
is, in terms of age, educa-
tional background, qualifications, quality of references, and the
degree to which they are well
spoken, look presentable, and have a personable nature). The
exception is that the man has
3 years more experience than the woman in handling projects
similar to those the employee
will be asked to take on.
If the man is selected based on his additional experience, this is
a fair and logical choice.
However, if the man is selected because the interviewing
manager believes that women in
general are less dedicated and more prone to familial
distractions than men, discrimination
has influenced the choice. Discrimination would also be a factor
if the woman is hired because
the manager thinks that men are too chauvinistic and
overbearing to be good team players.
Instead of observing and responding to an actual interaction,
(such as, “She clearly stated
that she has just married, desires children, and would want to be

a stay-at-home mom for
her child’s first four years,” or “He made several chauvinistic
remarks that I found very offen-
sive”), the interviewing manager made the decision based on
blindly applied stereotypes and
prejudice.
Within specific groups and teams, discrimination can be
expressed as:
• discounting or refusing praise for particular members’
contributions or work,
• refusing to collaborate or respect assigned roles, and
• two negative phenomena: scapegoating and blaming the
victim.
Scapegoating occurs when a group member (the scapegoat) is
unfairly singled out and
blamed or aggressed against for something, in order to release
the group’s pent-up anger and
frustration. For example, if a new product or marketing design
fails in testing, a constructive
reaction would be to come together as a team to evaluate the
failure and potential solutions.
However, disappointment combined with underlying stereotypes
or prejudice can lead some
group members to unfairly lash out and blame another member,
saying, for example, “It’s
Geri’s fault. He probably isn’t even qualified for this. Everyone
knows people from India fake
their diplomas. He’s probably here under a visa scam!”
Geri, who has done none of those things and does not deserve to
be singled out for the entire
team’s failure, will be understandably offended. It is also likely
that other members of the

team will be offended on his behalf. Not only is Geri aggressed
against, but the whole team
can become involved in responding to the negative interaction
and possibly even break into
subgroups that defend different sides. Needless to say, this does
nothing to address the
actual problem—fixing the team’s error and finding a workable
solution. Furthermore, it can
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 135 8/19/16 9:35 AM
fundamentally damage group cohesion and interrelations. The
term scapegoat is rooted in
a biblical guilt-transference ritual in which members of a
community transfer their sins to
a goat and then send it, along with their load of sins, out into
the wilderness to disappear
(Zatelli, 1998). When we turn our team members into
scapegoats, however, neither they, nor
our sins, disappear. If not carefully handled and resolved,
scapegoating can tear a team apart.
Blaming the victim occurs when we ascribe a negative outcome,
such as prejudice or dis-
crimination, to the victim’s personal characteristics and actions
(Johnson & Johnson, 2013).
Why would we blame the victim? Most of us would feel
considerable shame admitting that
we engaged in aggression—such as lying, stealing, or even

psychological or physical abuse—
toward members of another group because we were jealous,
coveted their resources, or sim-
ply lashed out. To make ourselves feel better about negative
feelings and actions, we might
convince ourselves that members of the other group deserve
such treatment. Unfortunately,
this type of thinking is often applied to victims of violence,
with aggressors and even other
parties blaming the victim. You may have heard victim-blaming
statements such as, “Anyone
walking alone in a bad neighborhood at night deserves to be
mugged.”
It is natural for us to try to assign blame or find a cause for
negative experiences (Hersh,
2013). As harmful as it might be, blaming the victim reinforces
the belief that bad things hap-
pen for a reason and are therefore preventable. This gives us a
sense of control and restores
our confidence in our ability to predict and avoid negative
experiences. Causal attribution,
wherein we analyze events and interactions and infer causes, is
a natural part of our learning
process. If we cannot find a cause for a negative experience, we
have no way of protecting our-
selves from it. Unfortunately, sometimes there is no logical or
discernable reason for a nega-
tive outcome. For example, perhaps there was nothing wrong
with the product or marketing
design handed in by Geri’s team; perhaps the deciding project
manager simply felt it was not
right for the market or that another ideation round might
produce an even better solution.
In that case there was no overt error or tangible reason for the
rejection—the team itself did

nothing wrong.
Reality Check: Examining In-Group-Out-Group Hostilities
Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination have played a part in
the most profoundly disturb-
ing group clashes in history. Social exclusion, enslavement,
forced encampment, denial of basic
human and civil rights, psychological and physical abuse, and
horrendous acts of extermina-
tion all seem to have these infernal cognitive barriers at their
root. But are they really the cause
of such behavior?
In the 1970s psychology professor Philip Zimbardo conducted a
study now generally known
as the Stanford prison experiment, which sought to determine
the psychological effects of
becoming either a prisoner or a guard. After carefully
eliminating candidates with medical or
psychological issues, criminal history, or drug abuse problems,
Zimbardo (1999) and his team
selected 24 college students from the United States and Canada
and arbitrarily divided them
into two groups. Half were assigned to be guards, and the others
were designated as prisoners.
The experiment was meant to be as realistic as possible
(Zimbardo, 1999). Consultants helped
construct a realistic ‘prison’ and ‘yard’ (including an area for
solitary confinement) in the
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 136 8/19/16 9:35 AM

basement of the Stanford psychology building. ‘Prisoners’ were
publically arrested on charges
of armed robbery and burglary. They were searched,
handcuffed, and taken to the Palo Alto
Police Department, where they were booked, blindfolded, and
placed in cells. They were then
transported to the constructed prison area. There, the students
acting as guards—dressed in
uniform and wearing dark sunglasses—systematically stripped
and searched the prisoners.
They also doused the prisoners with spray—an act meant to
convey the idea that they may be
riddled with vermin. Prisoners were issued a humiliating smock
and stocking cap and given
a number that became the only name by which they were known.
A chain was also wrapped
around each prisoner’s ankle to increase the sense of captivity.
The guards were told to do whatever they felt necessary, within
reason, to maintain law and
order and to command the prisoners’ respect (Zimbardo, 1999).
Researchers were somewhat
shocked by what took place. The guards became abusive, and as
many as one third engaged
in behavior described as sadistic. Some prisoners had severe
psychological reactions, others
rebelled against the guards, and some abandoned the experiment
entirely. Interestingly, none
of the guards quit, left early, called in sick, came late for their
shift, or demanded pay for over-
time work. Though the experiment was set to last 2 weeks, it
had to be halted after only 6 days.

So what happened during the Stanford prison experiment?
Psychologists tend to treat ste-
reotypes and other ideological factors held by individuals as
causes for hostility toward out-
groups. However, social psychology has shown that if people
change their behavior (perhaps
due to outside forces, like conditions in an experiment) and feel
committed to that change,
attitudes often follow suit. This suggests that, while some
conflict involving out-groups stems
from preexisting negative attitudes toward a particular group, it
is also possible that because
we treat members of a group poorly, we develop hostile
attitudes toward them (Jussim et al.,
2005). This shift results in new sets of norms consistent with
the altered behavior. Zimbardo’s
(1999) test subjects were randomly divided into prisoners and
guards. There were no preex-
isting negative attitudes between the two groups, but the guards
became increasingly hostile
as they treated their fellow test subjects like prisoners. These
attitudes and behaviors gener-
ated a new set of norms through which they perceived their poor
treatment of the prisoners
as expected, acceptable, and even deserved.
The full story of the Stanford prison experiment, including
multimedia and the prisoners’ plot
to escape, can be found at http://www.prisonexp.org.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Zimbardo concluded that the treatment in prisons
dehumanizes people. Do you think he
was talking about the prisoners or the guards? Explain your

answer.
2. Zimbardo noted that his decision to stop the experiment was
made during a wake-
up-call moment in which Christina Maslach, newly graduated
from the Stanford PhD
program, came in from outside the experiment to conduct
unbiased interviews with
the guards and prisoners. Upon observing the participants, she
confronted Zimbardo,
exclaiming, “It’s terrible what you are doing to these boys!” Do
you think the scientists
also experienced a shift in norms while observing the
participants’ altered behavior?
Explain your answer.
3. What if group norms in the workplace called for you to treat
someone else poorly?
Would you do so, and what do think would happen over time if
you continued to do so
on a regular basis?
Reality Check: Examining In-Group-Out-Group Hostilities
(continued)
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 137 8/19/16 9:35 AM
http://www.prisonexp.org
ExpertiseWorldview
Individual

Interests
& Needs
Personality
Nationality
Gender
Age
Culture
Language
Social
Class
Social
Position
Sexual
Orientation
Ethnicity
Religion
Education
Level
Handicapping
Conditions
Surface Level
Deep-Level

Section 4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
4.4 Examining Diversity Within Workplace Groups
In the overview on member diversity in Chapter 1, we separated
member qualities into two
basic categories: demographic characteristics and individual
attributes. Demographic charac-
teristics represent a surface-level diversity that is fairly overt
and readily observable, either
as physical and behavioral characteristics (that is, gender,
language, ethnicity, or handicap-
ping conditions) or as socially acknowledged identifiers (that is,
social position, education
level, nationality, and religion) (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005;
Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale,
2006). Social networking platforms such as Facebook and
LinkedIn have normalized online
profiles that announce surface-level diversity, making even less
obvious characteristics (such
as sexual orientation or educational background) easier to
perceive. In contrast, individual
attributes, interests, and needs represent deep-level diversity, or
characteristics that can
only be perceived over time by engaging in verbal and
nonverbal interactions (Harrison,
Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Phillips et al., 2006). Figure 4.2
provides a graphic representa-
tion of surface-level and deep-level diversity.
Figure 4.2: Levels of member diversity
There are two levels of member diversity: surface-level
diversity, which consists of observable
characteristics, and deep-level diversity, which consists of less
readily perceived characteristics.

ExpertiseWorldview
Individual
Interests
& Needs
Personality
Nationality
Gender
Age
Culture
Language
Social
Class
Social
Position
Sexual
Orientation
Ethnicity
Religion
Education
Level
Handicapping
Conditions

Surface Level
Deep-Level
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 138 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Research on group dynamics in organizational settings takes the
existence of both sur-
face- and deep-level diversity as a given, focusing instead on
the relevance of each of these
dimensions for group performance and their influence on
positive and negative outcomes
(Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). So far, this perspective suggests
that while surface-level diver-
sity immediately impacts group cohesion and conflict, long-term
effects and performance
outcomes were mainly dependent on the existing deep-level
diversity between group mem-
bers (Harrison et al., 2002; Chidambaram & Carte, 2005).
Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998),
for example, observed that gender differences initially divided
their study groups. Over time,
however, group members developed positive interrelations
based on the successful mesh-
ing of individual attributes. This led to increased cohesion, a
sense of mutual respect among
group members, and overall satisfaction with the groups.

In essence, surface-level diversity promotes division and
conflict that can be either strength-
ened or resolved, depending on group members’ ability to find
common ground within deep-
level diversity characteristics. Table 4.1 outlines this concept.
Table 4.1: Effects of surface-level and deep-level diversity
Diversity level Basic dynamics Long-term effects
Surface level • This level activates stereotyping,
prejudice, and discrimination
between members.
• This level fosters factions
and in-group and out-group
subdivisions.
Negative interactions caused by
surface-level diversity can be miti-
gated and resolved over the long term
if members connect over similar or
complementary deep-level diversity
characteristics.
Deep level • This level is less overtly
noticeable, and therefore less
likely to generate conflict at the
beginning of group work.
• Differences tend to be more
profound and personal in nature,
resulting in conflict that is more
emotional and less easily resolved.
• Diversity in expertise almost

always has a positive effect on
group work.
Deep-level diversity may go unnoticed
for the duration of the group perfor-
mance. If and when it does become
tangible, differences can seem irrec-
oncilable because elements such as
worldview and personality are deeply
ingrained in members’ sense of self.
High diversity in these areas can break
up the team.
Member diversity can take on many forms. The forms of
diversity that are particularly sig-
nificant for today’s workplace groups and teams include
cultural and skill-based diversity,
personality differences, and the dynamics of members’
individual interests and needs. We
discuss these various forms of diversity throughout this section.
Cultural Diversity
Cultural diversity is often construed as referring only to
differences in nationality. How-
ever, culture is more loosely defined as the shared attitudes,
values, customs, practices, and
behavioral norms that are characteristic of a particular society,
social category, organiza-
tion, or group. From this viewpoint, cultural diversity in the
workplace can reflect diver-
sity across members’ previous or existing national,
organizational, and/or group cultures.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 139 8/19/16 9:35 AM

An organization itself can encompass one or many cultural
identities, each representing
the total construct of an entity’s culturally specific norms,
beliefs, attitudes, and experiences
(Chao, 2000).
So how does cultural diversity play out in groups and teams?
First, let’s consider cross-
cultural teams. These have members who are culturally diverse
and may cut across organi-
zational and/or national boundaries (Paul & Ray, 2013).
Members may have different back-
grounds and affiliations, whether they are individual cultural
identities and nationalities or
distinct organizational cultures (Earley & Erez, 1997; Bell &
Kozlowski, 2002). Cross-cultural
team members face broad diversity issues, since each person can
bring an entirely differ-
ent set of cultural identities to the group. Interactions within
cross-cultural teams typically
involve conflict, since members exchange diverse information
and viewpoints (Paul & Ray,
2013). However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact,
inviting that wealth of exchange to
encourage constructive controversy, a concept we will cover
further in Chapter 6, is often the
point of building a cross-cultural team.
Imagine the cultural clash that occurred when Microsoft and
Apple collaborated to include

Microsoft’s Bing- as the default search engine in Apple’s iOS7
(McLaughlin, 2013). Each of
these organizations possess a strong and dynamically opposing
cultural identity. Their cul-
tures are so distinctive that they have even spawned cultural
followings among their clients,
as Apple’s 2006 “get a Mac” campaign
(http://youtu.be/p5Yt30wrbl4) humorously capital-
ized on. Still, any cultural conflict they may have experienced
during their collaboration was
put to good use in their efforts to take market share away from
their mutual rival, Google.
Of the various forms of cultural diversity, national diversity
among team members is per-
haps the most potentially negative. National diversity is more
complex than other forms of
cultural diversity because, along with differences in culture,
team members must deal with
differences in language proficiency. This is of particular
concern for today’s multinational
organizations. Multinational teams tend to be temporary in
nature and feature members who
have neither worked together before nor expect to work together
in the same context again
(Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1994). Team
members may rarely engage in face-
to-face in-person interactions and are typically drawn from
across organizational, functional,
and national boundaries (Paul & Ray, 2013). Although members
of multinational teams typi-
cally speak a common language, they frequently encounter
language barriers, conceptual dif-
ferences based on cultural background and norms, and cultural
conditioning specific to their
country of origin. Add the fact that multinational teams are

predominantly virtual, and mem-
bers face contextual diversity as well.
So how does cultural diversity affect group performance?
Cultural diversity can bring an
increasingly necessary range of cultural backgrounds and
knowledge to a group or team,
but positive performance outcomes depend mainly on members’
ability to generate mutual
understanding and shared vision. Effective communication and
conflict resolution are critical
tools for making these positive connections between members
and gaining value from cul-
tural diversity in a group or team.
Next, let’s take a look at skill diversity.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 140 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Skill Diversity
Member differences related to functional or departmental
background fall under the heading
of skill-based diversity. Though it names only one of its
elements, the term skill diversity
typically encompasses individual attributes related to expertise,
including KSAs and relevant
experience. KSAs represent a common competency model for
evaluating an employee’s abil-
ity to perform a job. Let’s take a closer look at the elements that

constitute KSAs:
• Knowledge refers to any information or subject matter
familiarity possessed by the
employee at the outset of the performance that can be directly
applied to undertak-
ing tasks and activities.
• Skills represent learned and observable competencies in the
manual, verbal, or
mental manipulation of people, ideas, or things. Skills fall into
four basic categories:
hard, soft, critical-thinking, and problem-solving skills (for
more on these, see Chap-
ter 2).
• Abilities represent the power and capacity to perform tasks or
functions and to
carry out activities while applying or utilizing relevant skills
and knowledge. Abili-
ties can be physical—for example, an employee who is hired to
lift heavy stock must
be physically able to do so. They can also be mental. An
employee may be a very fast
typist, for example, but the ability to clearly and concisely
outline points, organize
information, and put together a project proposal is far more
valuable than the speed
at which it is typed up.
As we know from Chapter 1, skill-diverse memberships drawn
from different functional or
departmental backgrounds are referred to as cross-functional.
Cross-functional teams have
become popular across all team variations and settings as a
viable way to enhance creativity,

flexibility, and functionality of collaborative work processes
and products. Diversity based on
differences in members’ KSAs tends to improve the group’s
performance outcomes, particu-
larly when they involve complex group processes or tasks
(Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000).
Members who vary in type or level of KSAs will naturally
complement each other during
properly managed group work and teamwork, enhancing
performance levels for the entire
team. Homogenous groups, which are based on similarities
between members, tend to miss
out on this important advantage. In such cases the primary
benefit of group work devolves
from the ability to collaborate and pool useful knowledge,
skills, and abilities toward effective
performance to a simple efficiency boost based on strength in
numbers.
So how does skill diversity affect group performance? Unlike
cultural diversity, there is no
evidence that skill diversity is ever a drawback. However, its
positive value depends mainly
on two factors:
1. Effective team building for relevant and complementary
expertise.
2. Members’ ability to work past other diversity characteristics
to effectively collaborate.
This includes surface-level diversity as well as deep-level
diversities such as personal-
ity differences and individual interests and needs.
We will examine the dynamics attached to these diversity
characteristics next.

cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 141 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Personality Differences
Personality represents another type of diversity. Personality
refers to individual differences
in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving
based on individual cognitive and
behavioral styles (McCreary, 1960; George & Jones, 2002).
These differences tend to be rela-
tively stable across time and situation. This definition makes
intuitive sense; when we label
an individual as a “grump,” we insinuate that he or she is
habitually in a bad mood, pessimis-
tic, and unhappy, regardless of the situation.
Like skill-based diversity, personality differences represent a
deep-level diversity. Although
some aspects of personality can be more obvious than others
(like extreme confidence or
shyness), member personality as a whole is complex and not
readily observable. Rather, one’s
personality may only surface after substantial interaction and
discussion among team mem-
bers. In fact, some aspects of personality can be so deeply
hidden or subtle that they can go
completely unnoticed, despite significantly influencing our
interactions.

Like other forms of diversity, personality can be either an asset
or a drawback to both group
work and teamwork. Because personality is complex and its
expression can highly depend
on the situation, individual personality differences can be hard
to define. We may not even
be aware that we possess a particular set of personality traits.
For this reason, personality
differences can lead to serious miscommunication and
dysfunctional conflict in teams (Utley,
Richardson, & Pilkington, 1989). It is therefore good practice
for groups and teams to become
aware of individual personality differences by taking
personality tests and understanding
that these differences can impact interaction.
Cognitive style reflects our habitual preferences for perceiving
and processing information;
our approach to knowledge retrieval and use; and our preferred
ways of thinking, solving
problems, and dealing with change (Chilton & Bloodgood,
2010). As a dimension of personal-
ity, cognitive style affects our tendency to be more or less
independent, attentive, impulsive,
reflective, adaptive, and innovative. It also affects our ability to
learn and recall information,
and it influences our attitudes, values, and behavior in social
interactions. Likewise, behav-
ioral style reflects habitual patterns of behavior developed over
time and influences our ten-
dency to be task or relationship oriented; prefer fast or slow
pacing; and be more or less
dominant, expressive, supportive, or calculating in social
interactions (McKenna, Shelton, &
Darling, 2002). Together, cognitive and behavioral styles make
up the dimensions of our per-

sonality (Robbins, 2001).
The Big Five and Myers–Briggs
Psychologists organize personality into specific dimensions,
referred to as traits (McCrae &
Costa, 1997). While hundreds of traits have been identified and
observed since personality
theory was introduced, five traits have emerged as cardinal in
their ability to influence behav-
ior and social patterns. These five traits form the five-factor (or
Big Five) model of personal-
ity (Goldberg, 1990). They include openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extroversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism (see Table 4.2).
Another tool for examining personality is the Myers -Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs-
Myers & Myers, 1980), which identifies four dual-poled
dimensions of personality. The four
dimensions include: extroversion -introversion, sensing -
intuition, thinking -feeling, and
judging -perceiving. The MBTI personality dimensions are
outlined in Table 4.3.
Table 4.2: Big Five personality traits
Trait Description Example
Openness to
experience
A person’s degree of intellectual
curiosity, creativity, and preference
for novelty; includes how imaginative
or independent a person is and the
degree to which one prefers to engage

in a variety of activities over a strict
routine
Members with a high level of openness
to experience are less likely to perceive
diversity as negative, more likely to
voluntarily engage in cross-cultural
interactions, and view differences as
interesting rather than threatening.
Conscientiousness A person’s degree of organization, level
of discipline, and how prone he or she
is to taking risks
Highly conscientious group members
will likely respond to all messages by
the end of each day, maintain impecca-
ble work areas, and make comprehen-
sive and detailed reports. They might
also avoid taking risks, challenging
boundaries, or breaking with norms.
Extroversion The degree to which a person dem-
onstrates energy, positive emotions,
positive engagement, assertiveness,
sociability, and talkativeness and seeks
stimulation in the company of others
Highly extroverted group members are
more likely to volunteer and discuss
ideas, seek out other members for col-
laboration, and prefer to socialize with
coworkers outside of work, as opposed
to staying in and watching a movie.
Agreeableness The degree to which a person is kind,

dependable, and cooperative
Highly agreeable group members
are typically more interested in
doing things for the common good,
as opposed to fulfilling their own
self-interests.
Neuroticism A person’s tendency toward unpleas-
ant emotions, such as anger, anxiety,
depression, and vulnerability; also
refers to a person’s tendency to be
nervous, anxious, and suffer from low
self-confidence and self-contentment
Members with a high degree of neu-
roticism tend to view interaction in a
negative light and to perceive and/or
start conflict, but they may be just as
quick to shy away from difficult con-
versations needed to resolve it. Anxiety
or lack of self-confidence can also lead
to poor participation in group efforts.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 142 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Personality Differences
Personality represents another type of diversity. Personality
refers to individual differences

in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving
based on individual cognitive and
behavioral styles (McCreary, 1960; George & Jones, 2002).
These differences tend to be rela-
tively stable across time and situation. This definition makes
intuitive sense; when we label
an individual as a “grump,” we insinuate that he or she is
habitually in a bad mood, pessimis-
tic, and unhappy, regardless of the situation.
Like skill-based diversity, personality differences represent a
deep-level diversity. Although
some aspects of personality can be more obvious than others
(like extreme confidence or
shyness), member personality as a whole is complex and not
readily observable. Rather, one’s
personality may only surface after substantial interaction and
discussion among team mem-
bers. In fact, some aspects of personality can be so deeply
hidden or subtle that they can go
completely unnoticed, despite significantly influencing our
interactions.
Like other forms of diversity, personality can be either an asset
or a drawback to both group
work and teamwork. Because personality is complex and its
expression can highly depend
on the situation, individual personality differences can be hard
to define. We may not even
be aware that we possess a particular set of personality traits.
For this reason, personality
differences can lead to serious miscommunication and
dysfunctional conflict in teams (Utley,
Richardson, & Pilkington, 1989). It is therefore good practice
for groups and teams to become
aware of individual personality differences by taking

personality tests and understanding
that these differences can impact interaction.
Cognitive style reflects our habitual preferences for perceiving
and processing information;
our approach to knowledge retrieval and use; and our preferred
ways of thinking, solving
problems, and dealing with change (Chilton & Bloodgood,
2010). As a dimension of personal-
ity, cognitive style affects our tendency to be more or less
independent, attentive, impulsive,
reflective, adaptive, and innovative. It also affects our ability to
learn and recall information,
and it influences our attitudes, values, and behavior in social
interactions. Likewise, behav-
ioral style reflects habitual patterns of behavior developed over
time and influences our ten-
dency to be task or relationship oriented; prefer fast or slow
pacing; and be more or less
dominant, expressive, supportive, or calculating in social
interactions (McKenna, Shelton, &
Darling, 2002). Together, cognitive and behavioral styles make
up the dimensions of our per-
sonality (Robbins, 2001).
The Big Five and Myers–Briggs
Psychologists organize personality into specific dimensions,
referred to as traits (McCrae &
Costa, 1997). While hundreds of traits have been identified and
observed since personality
theory was introduced, five traits have emerged as cardinal in
their ability to influence behav-
ior and social patterns. These five traits form the five-factor (or
Big Five) model of personal-
ity (Goldberg, 1990). They include openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extroversion,

agreeableness, and neuroticism (see Table 4.2).
Another tool for examining personality is the Myers -Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs-
Myers & Myers, 1980), which identifies four dual-poled
dimensions of personality. The four
dimensions include: extroversion -introversion, sensing -
intuition, thinking -feeling, and
judging -perceiving. The MBTI personality dimensions are
outlined in Table 4.3.
Table 4.2: Big Five personality traits
Trait Description Example
Openness to
experience
A person’s degree of intellectual
curiosity, creativity, and preference
for novelty; includes how imaginative
or independent a person is and the
degree to which one prefers to engage
in a variety of activities over a strict
routine
Members with a high level of openness
to experience are less likely to perceive
diversity as negative, more likely to
voluntarily engage in cross-cultural
interactions, and view differences as
interesting rather than threatening.
Conscientiousness A person’s degree of organization, level
of discipline, and how prone he or she
is to taking risks

Highly conscientious group members
will likely respond to all messages by
the end of each day, maintain impecca-
ble work areas, and make comprehen-
sive and detailed reports. They might
also avoid taking risks, challenging
boundaries, or breaking with norms.
Extroversion The degree to which a person dem-
onstrates energy, positive emotions,
positive engagement, assertiveness,
sociability, and talkativeness and seeks
stimulation in the company of others
Highly extroverted group members are
more likely to volunteer and discuss
ideas, seek out other members for col-
laboration, and prefer to socialize with
coworkers outside of work, as opposed
to staying in and watching a movie.
Agreeableness The degree to which a person is kind,
dependable, and cooperative
Highly agreeable group members
are typically more interested in
doing things for the common good,
as opposed to fulfilling their own
self-interests.
Neuroticism A person’s tendency toward unpleas-
ant emotions, such as anger, anxiety,
depression, and vulnerability; also
refers to a person’s tendency to be
nervous, anxious, and suffer from low

self-confidence and self-contentment
Members with a high degree of neu-
roticism tend to view interaction in a
negative light and to perceive and/or
start conflict, but they may be just as
quick to shy away from difficult con-
versations needed to resolve it. Anxiety
or lack of self-confidence can also lead
to poor participation in group efforts.
The Big Five traits and the MBTI are often used to evaluate
employees’ potential personality
dynamics as new hires or for group work and teamwork. Though
the results are not defini-
tive, they can help raise our awareness of our personality traits
and dimensions and the way
these may affect our interactions. Ideally, this can help
individuals better understand team-
mates who differ from them, and adjust their expectations and
behavior to accommodate
these differences.
For instance, extroverts and introverts have different
preferences when it comes to answer-
ing questions. Extroverts like to think out loud, while introverts
tend to prefer quiet time to
gather their thoughts. In groups, extroverts can crowd out
introverts by occupying a domi-
nant position in the conversation, disrupting introverts’ thought
processes, and not allowing
them enough time to answer questions. Groups that are aware of
these tendencies can work
to address them by:
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 143 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Extroversion Introversion
Sensing Intuition
Thinking Feeling
Judging Perceiving
Table 4.3: Four dimensions of the MBTI
Dimension Description Associated personality types
Extroversion–
introversion
Deals with how people direct their
attention and gain energy
Extrovert: directs attention outward,
toward people and objects
Introvert: directs attention inward,
toward concepts and ideas
Sensing–intuition Deals with how people gather
information
Sensing: prefers information that can

be understood by the five senses and
that is in the present, tangible, and
concrete
Intuitive: prefers information that
comes from hunches; tends to instinc-
tively build patterns that provide a big-
picture view of a situation or problem
out of isolated facts
Thinking–feeling Deals with how people tend to make
decisions
Thinking: tends to make decisions
from a detached standpoint, measuring
the decision by what seems reasonable,
logical, causal, consistent, and to match
a given set of rules
Feeling: tends to come to decisions by
associating or empathizing with the
situation and weighing it to achieve
the greatest harmony, considering the
needs of those involved
Judging–perceiving Deals with preferences for using either
the judging function (thinking or feel-
ing) or perceiving function (sensing or
intuition) when relating to the outside
world
Judging: tends to have her life orga-
nized and under control; likes to meet
deadlines and be on time
Perceiving: tends to be spontaneous

in attitude and action; may often be
late and seem disorganized to judg-
ing types because he likes to keep his
options open until the last minute
Extroversion Introversion
Sensing Intuition
Thinking Feeling
Judging Perceiving
• making conversational space for introverts and inviting them
to share ideas;
• structuring group process to include time for both active
discussion and quiet reflec-
tion; and
• employing techniques like the round robin, where everybody
takes turns speaking.
A good group facilitator can also help manage such a process.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 144 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Personality and Effectiveness
Beyond developing sensitivity to avoid miscommunication and
conflict, teams can benefit

from diverse personalities in the same way they can benefit
from diverse skills. For instance,
in a project team composed of both intuitive and sensing types,
the intuitive types will tend to
focus on the big-picture aspects of the project, whereas the
sensing types will pay attention to
and manage its details. Both of these aspects are important to
the project’s successful comple-
tion. Furthermore, they are complementary.
Similarly, both thinking and feeling types can be useful and
complement each other when
teams make decisions. Imagine, for instance, that one member
of a team experiences an
adverse allergic reaction during a lunch meeting. Thinking types
are likely to focus on logic to
deal with the situation (for example, throw the food away, call
911, and search for medication
in their colleague’s belongings). Feeling types are more likely
to offer physical and psycho-
logical comfort (for example, holding the team member’s hand,
telling her it will be alright,
distracting her with a witty story). Both types react usefully to
the situation.
While it is generally desirable to have diverse personality types
within a group or team,
research has shown that certain personality traits are more
beneficial than others. Agree-
ableness can significantly enhance group cohesiveness and
cooperation levels and can
facilitate attachment between members and conflict resolution
(Greene, 1989; Neuman &
Wright, 1999; Klein et al., 2006). Conscientiousness has been
found to be a fairly potent posi-
tive predictor of team effectiveness (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert,

& Mount, 1998; Neuman &
Wright, 1999). However, it is more strongly related to
effectiveness for performance and
planning tasks than for creativity and decision-making tasks
(Barry & Stewart, 1997; Neu-
man & Wright, 1999). Furthermore, when decisions require
adaptability, the rule following
and risk avoidance associated with conscientiousness becomes a
negative, and openness to
experience is the more relevant positive predictor of
effectiveness. Therefore, the type of per-
formance required by the group or team determines whether
conscientiousness will be a
desirable personality trait in its members. Finally, extroversion
can have a positive impact
on group performance, since the tendency to “think out loud” is
conducive to communica-
tion and knowledge sharing between members. However, its
impact on team effectiveness is
greater for decision-making tasks than for performance or
planning tasks, possibly because
the former involve a greater degree of persuasion and personal
influence (Barry & Stewart,
1997; Neuman & Wright, 1999).
Overall, personality is an important facet of diversity that
influences the effectiveness of
groups and teams. While certain traits (such as agreeableness)
are desirable in all team mem-
bers, it is also important to have a mix of different personality
traits that complement each
other and maximize group effectiveness. It is also advantageous
for team members to become
aware of their own personality traits and those of their
teammates—this helps avoid destruc-
tive miscommunication and conflict. They can do so by taking

personality tests such as the
MBTI or the Big Five personality test. Next, we look at
individual interests and needs, another
sometimes invisible diversity characteristic that can have a very
visible impact on group and
team performance.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 145 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Concepts in Action: Are You an Introvert or Extrovert?
Take the Lemon-Drop Test!
Can a drop of lemon juice tell you if you are introvert or
extrovert? In 1967 Dr. Hans Eysenck
pioneered a series of experiments examining introversion and
extroversion in relation to exci-
tation of the nervous system. Have you ever noticed that your
mouth begins to water at your
first bite of dinner after a long day? This has to do with a part
of our brain that responds to
stimuli like food, noise, and social contact. Working from the
idea that introverts are more
sensitive to sensory stimulus, Eysenck devised the lemon-drop
test to quickly and easily test
those sensitivity levels (Little, 2014):
Here’s what you do: Get an eyedropper, a piece of thread, a
double-tipped cotton swab, and
concentrated lemon juice. Attach the thread to the middle of the

cotton swab so that when
you hold it by the end of the thread it balances horizontally.
Swallow about four times, then
hold one end of the swab on your tongue for 20 seconds. Take it
out and place five drops of the
lemon juice concentrate on your tongue. Swallow the juice then
place the remaining dry end of
the swab on your tongue for 20 seconds, take it out, and let it
dangle. What do you see? Some
people will end up with a horizontal swab. Others will watch
one end (the after-juice side) dip
down. What does it mean?
When Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck 1967a, 1967b) placed four
drops of lemon juice on a test
subject’s tongue for 20 seconds, extreme extroverts salivated a
little or not at all. Extreme
introverts had a massive response. These and other subsequent
recreations of the lemon-drop
test (Corcoran & Hajduk, 1980) found that generally:
• introverts salivated more than extroverts, and
• most people salivated more heavily in response to noise during
the test and in the
morning, as opposed to afternoon.
Although later studies found this method to be inconclusive
(Ramsay, 1969), the lemon-drop
test is still a fun and easy experiment you can perform at home
by yourself or with family and
friends. Try the test at different times of the day and in both a
quiet and a noisy environment. If
your swab remains level, you might be biogenically predisposed
to extroversion. If your swab
dips, you have a stronger response to sensory stimulation,

making you more biogenically pre-
disposed to introversion (Little, 2014).
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. How did the results of your test correlate to your own
expectations about your
personality?
2. Discuss the results and expectations you had for the test with
family members or
friends. How do their assessments of your personality compare
to your own?
3. Although the lemon-drop test is not a formal evaluation of
your personality traits, it does
represent a step toward self-awareness. Based on the Big Five
and Myers–Briggs person-
ality traits and dimensions described in this section, what other
observations can you
make about your own personality and how it might impact group
work and teamwork?
Individual Interests and Needs
Though they unite around some common interest or purpose,
group members do have indi-
vidual interests and needs. Some of these they hope to fulfill via
the group experience, and
others will inevitably affect the group’s dynamics. In 1954 Dr.
Abraham Maslow published a
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 146 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Physiological Survival Needs: shelter, nourishment, warmth,
sex, sleep
Safety Needs: security, protection, stability, order, limits
Belongingness Needs: relationships, affection, family,
groups, inclusion, acceptance
Esteem Needs: achievement, status,
responsibility, recognition
Cognitive Needs
Aesthetic Needs
Self-Actuation
Needs
Transcendence
game-changing book titled Motivation and Personality. This
seminal work introduced a foun-
dational model of human needs, organized in a pyramid. The
needs at the base of the pyramid
represent the most critical and undeniable, such as basic
physiological survival needs. Each
subsequent level represents higher aims that we are motivated to
satisfy only after fulfilling
the ones below. While later versions of the hierarchy (Maslow,
1969a, 1969b) added layers to
the top, the first four levels remain the same. As shown in
Figure 4.3, these include, in ascend-

ing order, our basic survival needs, our safety needs, our desire
to belong, and our desire to
enhance our self-esteem through acceptance, as well as through
personal achievement and
respect from others.
Figure 4.3: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: The four foundational
needs
In Maslow’s final hierarchy of human needs, belongingness and
esteem rank just after basic survival
and safety needs, taking precedence over our desire to know and
understand and the drive to find
personal fulfillment.
Source: Based on Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and
personality. Boston: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers
Inc.
Physiological Survival Needs: shelter, nourishment, warmth,
sex, sleep
Safety Needs: security, protection, stability, order, limits
Belongingness Needs: relationships, affection, family,
groups, inclusion, acceptance
Esteem Needs: achievement, status,
responsibility, recognition
Cognitive Needs
Aesthetic Needs
Self-Actuation
Needs

Transcendence
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 147 8/19/16 12:56 PM
Contrary to the dimensions of diversity that impact group and
team performance, it is not
the differences in our individual interests and needs that are
most significant. It is expected
that members—especially when they come from different
organizations or departments—
will hold vested interests, and for the most part these are dealt
with by following organiza-
tional procedure regarding hierarchy, processes, and
cooperative practices. It is generally the
human needs we hold in common, such as the desire for
belongingness and esteem, that are
unplanned for and impact us most, as we find our own
individual way of expressing and real-
izing them within the group (Cornelis, Van Hiel, & De Cremer,
2012).
Belongingness
Belongingness refers to our psychological and emotional need
to feel—and sense of being—
accepted, valued, sheltered, and cared for by a specific group
and to reciprocate acceptance,
value, protection, and caring in turn (Baumeister & Leary,
1995). More than simple compan-

ionship, most people want to feel a sense of belongingness
within a specific group or com-
munity of others. The desire to identify with and belong to a
cohesive group is arguably an
evolved species survival trait (DeWall, Deckman, Pond, &
Bonser, 2011). The comparative
luxury of even the most modest modern lifestyles makes it easy
to forget that in early civi-
lizations and primitive cultures, exile from the group was
equated with both physical and
spiritual death.
Physically, an individual is severely disadvantaged when
competing against a group; resource
procurement, allocation, protection, and sharing are all more
easily accomplished within a
cooperative group. Failure to belong is known to be
psychologically and emotionally dam-
aging as well. Many of our positive emotions (triumph, elation,
contentment, serenity) are
linked to our perceived acceptance, inclusion, and welcome by
others. Rejection, exclusion,
and being ignored foster anxiety, depression, anger, and
despair. Acceptance and value within
a group are often denoted by a group member’s status within the
group, which is associated
with esteem needs within Maslow’s hierarchy.
Status
Status is an informally or formally conferred social ranking or
position in relation to oth-
ers. Status can be awarded in two ways: from outside the group
and carried into it (for
example, designated leadership), or granted by other members
of the group (for example,
emergent leadership). Formal status involves specific titles and

responsibilities or rewards
(for example, project manager or Miss America). Informal
status grants no special titles or
overt responsibilities and rewards, but it may come with more
subtle versions of these (for
example, influence among peers or respect and deferment).
When status is granted, it can
be based on an individual’s actual KSAs or on his or her
perceived or assumed KSAs. Experts
tend to be given more status and be deferred to when their area
of expertise comes into play.
Members with greater experience in a particular area enjoy
similar effects. If group members
have not worked together before and do not take the time to get
to know one another’s KSAs,
they might incorrectly assume that skills are present (or are
lacking). We often assume, for
example, that older group members have more job-specific
experience and knowledge, but
this is not always the case. People enter the job market at
various times and stages in their
lives. Assuming an older group member has significantly more
knowledge and experience
than he or she does can lead a group to follow unrealistic
suggestions or may create personal
conflict and bad feelings on both sides should the group member
be unable to fulfill others’
expectations.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 148 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Status differences can affect the emergence of leadership and
responsibility roles and influ-
ence how team members interact (Berger, Fisek, Norman, &
Zelditch, 1977). For example,
higher status members tend to interrupt more often, sometimes
using this as a tool to control
a conversation—and thereby hold greater influence in the
interaction (Farley, 2008). We tend
to believe that higher status individuals are more trustworthy
and competent than members
with lower status. If group members act on these beliefs, such
assumptions can become self-
fulfilling and potentially impede group achievement. In today’s
workplace, formally trained
expertise is not a given—nor does it always lead to greater skill.
Elon Musk, for example,
typically hires the best students from the top schools—but he
makes a point of disregarding
the educational level or background of new hires when they can
prove unique KSAs in rel-
evant areas (Vance, 2015). Not everybody is so practical,
however. Group members can dis-
count informally trained colleagues, rallying around those with
official titles and degrees. The
expectation of skill can be so strong that even when formally
educated members prove to be
less knowledgeable or skilled than others, this tends to be
overlooked as members with rel-
evant skills pick up the slack. However, unless the members in
power admit their lack of rel-
evant input or contributions—or other group members break
their cycle of expectation and
recognize who is making the most effective contributions—
those doing the actual work will

not be credited. Letting members who are doing real and
valuable work go unacknowledged
invites resentment, sets up false expectations about the value of
each group member, and cre-
ates a situation in which some members are working for others,
rather than with the group.
The tendency to assign status based on false assumptions can
involve stereotyping. Group
or team members may use surface-level characteristics to infer
what someone’s skills, expe-
rience, or attitudes may be in group roles or tasks, thereby
affecting the individual’s abil-
ity to achieve status within the group or team. For instance,
stereotypes related to certain
characteristics—such as gender, ethnicity, or age—can factor
into role assignments within
groups. Women—who are often viewed as more intuitive and
conciliatory then men (Carli,
1989)—may be expected to take on mediation or facilitation
duties for the group. Likewise,
nonnative-language speakers may be disregarded or not given
equal attention during discus-
sion because members assume they will not be very good at
expressing themselves. Mem-
bers may also hold expectations about the way interactions will
play out, expecting higher
status members to speak more and set agendas. If such
expectations are based on assumed
rather than actual KSAs, members with worthy ideas or
implementation experience may feel
squelched or unappreciated.
All of these problems are associated with assigning status based
on unfounded assumptions
and can result in damaging the sense of belongingness and

esteem of some—if not all—of a
group’s members. Acknowledging and rewarding real
contributions and KSAs is critical to
effective performance. Discovering who our group mates really
are and what they know is a
key step in:
• avoiding errors and negative dynamics caused by false
assumptions,
• strategically planning for and making good use of members’
actual KSAs,
• helping the group move through the status-balancing process,
• overthrowing stereotypes and their associated negative effects,
• flattening status hierarchies as members develop positive
relations, and
• maintaining members’ sense of belongingness and esteem.
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 149 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
Individual needs for belongingness and esteem can affect group
interaction in other ways.
A desire for acceptance, for example, can cause some group
members to avoid disagreeing
with others or identifying problems, even when knowledge or
experience suggests that they
should. This is a common pitfall in groups and teams in which
members lack the confidence
to engage in open knowledge sharing and conflict, and many
team failures are attributed to

this (Jelphs, 2006; Salas et al., 2000). The desire for personal
achievement or recognition can
likewise lead some members to view those who do bring up
potential problems as imped-
ing group progress, rather than raising important concerns. If
they can activate other group
members’ desire for achievement by rapidly accomplishing the
group’s objectives, the team
may fall into groupthink, a process dysfunction that can have
disastrous results. We will exam-
ine groupthink and other decision-making downfalls in Chapter
6. For now, we will focus on
strategies for managing diversity to achieve positive outcomes.
4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
In the workplace, group diversity primarily impacts
performance via the functional dimen-
sions of member interrelations, namely interdependence,
communication, and group pro-
cesses. Fundamentally, this is because diverse groups tend to be
less cohesive and more prone
to conflict (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005). Depending on how
these conditions play out, they
can have either positive or negative results. The tendency
toward greater conflict, for exam-
ple, is generally regarded as conducive to creativity, innovation,
and increased quality in solu-
tion finding and decision making (Agrawal, 2012). However,
poorly managed conflict tends to
lead to more process loss than gain (Kolb, 2013).
To successfully coordinate and collaborate within group
endeavors, both socioemotional and
task interdependence demand a certain level of cohesiveness
and the ability to air and resolve
conflicts between team members. Effective communication is

the primary means by which
members can achieve these ends, yet diversity can damage the
development of shared per-
ception and understanding required for effective
communication. This in turn has a profound
effect on group processes and generates negative diversity
effects. Conversely, positive diver-
sity effects (such as increased ideas and viewpoints) can
enhance group discussion, which
increases the quality of group problem-solving and decision-
making outcomes. This in turn
enhances the group’s motivation and satisfaction across both
dimensions of interdependence.
The effects of group diversity, acting in concert with the
functional dimensions of member
interrelations, create a self-sustaining cycle that continuously
generates and reinforces posi-
tive or negative effects and outcomes (see Figure 4.4). It is
therefore of utmost importance to
conscientiously manage member diversity and its associated
dynamics.
Perception and Diversity Management
Perception is critical to managing diversity for positive
outcomes. The perception of diver-
sity—that is, whether it is viewed as positive or negative—
dramatically affects how we engage
it and its overall impact (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). In the
workplace, diversity perceptions
begin with the organization.
Research suggests that organizations tend to view diversity
from one of four perspectives
(Podsiadlowski, Otten, & Van der Zee, 2009):
Figure 4.4: Interaction cycle: Diversity

and interrelations
The effects of diversity and the functional dimensions
of member interrelations can generate a self-
enhancing cycle of either positive or negative effects
and outcomes.
Diversity Effects
Communication
Group Processes Interdependence
cog81769_04_c04_125-162.indd 150 8/19/16 9:35 AM
Diversity Effects
Communication
Group Processes Interdependence
Section 4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
1. Reinforcing homogeneity: The
organization tends to avoid,
reject, and even drive out
diversity within its workforce.
This can be explicit and overtly
designed, as in the case of a
casting call looking for a par-

ticular type of actor. Or it can
be implicit, wherein managers
use highly specific criteria to
select and promote employees.
For example, hiring criteria that
require applicants to know the
local social and business scene,
have long-term residency, and
be able to access certain net-
works would implicitly rein-
force homogeneity by screening
out recent immigrants (Flam,
2008; Podsiadlowski & Ward,
2010).
2. Discrimination and fairness: The
organization advocates treating
people equally no matter what.
However, it does so from a point of intentional blindness that
neither acknowledges
differences nor the need for supportive measures to address
them (Ely & Thomas,
2001; Podsiadlowski et al., 2013).
3. Access: The organization views diversity as a business access
strategy, in which orga-
nizational employees reflect the diversity of the client and
market base.
4. Integration and learning: The organization believes that both
it and its employees
benefit from a diverse workforce. Diversity is viewed as
fostering a learning environ-
ment in which all parties mutually adapt.
An organization’s perspectives on diversity inform the attitudes

and behaviors of its manag-
ers and employees. Organizational perspectives also inform the
diversity strategies (ranging
from nonexistent to comprehensive) that communicate the
perceived significance of diversity
within the organization (Bhawuk, Podsiadlowski, Graf, &
Triandis, 2002). If the organization
does not view diversity as a relevant factor, managers and
employees will be less likely to do
so as well. Even those who want to address employee diversity
will find it difficult to do so if
strategic organizational support is insufficient or absent.
Whatever perspective an organization adopts will be reflected in
its employees’ perception
and reaction to diversity within workplace groups and teams. Of
the four perspectives out-
lined previously, the access and integration and learning
perspectives are the most proactive
and useful for promoting positive diversity outcomes, since they
acknowledge the strategic
benefits and advantages of diversity that competitive
organizations call for today (Podsiad-
lowski et al., 2013).
Individual needs for belongingness and esteem can affect group
interaction in other ways.
A desire for acceptance, for example, can cause some group
members to avoid disagreeing
with others or identifying problems, even when knowledge or
experience suggests that they
should. This is a common pitfall in groups and teams in which
members lack the confidence
to engage in open knowledge sharing and conflict, and many
team failures are attributed to
this (Jelphs, 2006; Salas et al., 2000). The desire for personal

achievement or recognition can
likewise lead some members to view those who do bring up
potential problems as imped-
ing group progress, rather than raising important concerns. If
they can activate other group
members’ desire for achievement by rapidly accomplishing the
group’s objectives, the team
may fall into groupthink, a process dysfunction that can have
disastrous results. We will exam-
ine groupthink and other decision-making downfalls in Chapter
6. For now, we will focus on
strategies for managing diversity to achieve positive outcomes.
4.5 Managing Diversity for Positive Outcomes
In the workplace, group diversity primarily impacts
performance via the functional dimen-
sions of member interrelations, namely interdependence,
communication, and group pro-
cesses. Fundamentally, this is because diverse groups tend to be
less cohesive and more prone
to conflict (Chidambaram & Carte, 2005). Depending on how
these conditions play out, they
can have either positive or negative results. The tendency
toward greater conflict, for exam-
ple, is generally regarded as conducive to creativity, innovation,
and increased quality in solu-
tion finding and decision making (Agrawal, 2012). However,
poorly managed conflict tends to
lead to more process loss than gain (Kolb, 2013).
To successfully coordinate and collaborate within group
endeavors, both socioemotional and
task interdependence demand a certain level of cohesiveness
and the ability to air and resolve
conflicts between team members. Effective communication is
the primary means by which

members can achieve these ends, yet diversity can damage the
development of shared per-
ception and understanding required for effective
communication. This in turn has a profound
effect on group processes and generates negative diversity
effects. Conversely, positive diver-
sity effects (such as increased ideas and viewpoints) can
enhance group discussion, which
increases the quality of group problem-solving and decision-
making outcomes. This in turn
enhances the group’s motivation and satisfaction across both
dimensions of interdependence.
The effects of group diversity, acting in concert with the
functional dimensions of member
interrelations, create a self-sustaining cycle that continuously
generates and reinforces posi-
tive or negative effects and outcomes (see Figure 4.4). It is
therefore of utmost importance to
conscientiously manage member diversity and its associated
dynamics.
Perception and Diversity Management
Perception is critical to managing diversity for positive
outcomes. The perception of diver-
sity—that is, whether it is viewed as positive or negative—
dramatically affects how we engage
it and its overall impact (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). In the
workplace, diversity perceptions
begin with the organization.
Research suggests that organizations tend to view diversity
from one of four perspectives
(Podsiadlowski, Otten, & Van der Zee, 2009):
Figure 4.4: Interaction cycle: Diversity

1254Diversity Plume CreativeDigitalVisionGetty Image.docx

1254Diversity Plume CreativeDigitalVisionGetty Image.docx

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à 1254Diversity Plume CreativeDigitalVisionGetty Image.docx

Similaire à 1254Diversity Plume CreativeDigitalVisionGetty Image.docx (8)

Plus de aulasnilda

Plus de aulasnilda (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

1254Diversity Plume CreativeDigitalVisionGetty Image.docx