European J. International Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2010
Diversity and conflict in teams:
a contingency perspective
Jonas F. Puck*
Institute for International Business,
Department of Global Business and Trade,
WU Vienna University of Economics and Business,
Althanstr. 51, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Email: [email protected]
*Corresponding author
Anne-Katrin Neyer
Department of Information Systems I,
Faculty of Law and Business Administration,
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg,
Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nuremberg, Germany
Email: [email protected]
Tobias Dennerlein
Research Institute for International Management (FIM-HSG),
University of St.Gallen,
Dufourstr. 40, 9000 St.Gallen, Switzerland
Email: [email protected]
Abstract: Diverse teams are becoming widespread in the workplace. However,
previous research shows that many organisations fail to successfully manage
diversity. Using survey data collected from 27 teams in ten different countries,
we investigate the link between team diversity and intra-team conflicts. Building
on a contingency approach, we analyse moderating effects of the surrounding
organisational context of teams, namely organisational supportiveness and
openness. The results of our quantitative study show that the diversity-conflict
relation strongly depends on a team’s context. This presents interesting alleys
for future research and leads to implications for practice regarding the design
of a team’s context.
Keywords: teams; diversity; conflict; contingencies; context.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Puck, J.F., Neyer, A-K.
and Dennerlein, T. (2010) ‘Diversity and conflict in teams: a contingency
perspective’, European J. International Management, Vol. 4, No. 4,
pp.417–439.
Biographical notes: Jonas F. Puck is Full Professor of International Business
at the WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. His research focuses
on management and business in emerging markets, international human
resource management and cross-cultural management. His research has been
Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
417
418
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
published in journals such as the Journal of International Business Studies, the
Journal of International Management, Long Range Planning, International
Business Review, Human Resource Management or the International Journal
of Human Resource Management. He serves on the editorial board of the
European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management.
Anne-Katrin Neyer is an Assistant Professor at the University of ErlangenNuremberg and a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Leading
Innovation and Cooperation (CLIC) at the HHL-Leipzig Graduate School of
Management. Prior to joining the University Erlangen-Nuremberg, she was a
postdoctoral research fellow at the UK’s Advanced Institute of Management
Research (AIM) at the London Business School. Her research focuses on
interorganisational and intraorganisational cooperative systems, multinational
and virtual teams, and innovation processes. She has published on these topics
in journals such as Human Resource Management, International Studies of
Management and Organization, European Management Journal and R&D
Management.
Tobias Dennerlein is a PhD student at the University of St.Gallen (HSG),
Switzerland. Prior to enrolling in the PhD programme at HSG he obtained
his Diplom-Kaufmann degree (Masters equivalent) from Friedrich-AlexanderUniversity Erlangen-Nürnberg (Germany). His research interests focus on
leadership and diversity in teams.
1
Introduction
Nowadays, two ongoing trends set the stage for working in and for organisations: first, an
increasing amount of work in organisations is done through teamwork (e.g. Jackson,
1996; Jehn et al., 1999; Gibson et al., 2003) rather than by individuals working alone
(Marks et al., 2001). As Katzenbach and Smith (2003, p.15) state: “In any situation
requiring the real-time combination of multiple skills, experiences and judgments, a team
inevitably gets better results than a collection of individuals … ”. Second, the labour
market is becoming increasingly diverse (e.g. Cox et al., 1991; Gibson et al., 2003)
due to the mobility of employees and global merger and acquisition transactions
(van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007).
The boost of diversity and the emphasis of teamwork make it necessary for
organisations to learn how to use the ‘value-in-diversity’. However, previous studies
show that many organisations fail to successfully manage diversity and therefore “find
themselves at a competitive disadvantage” (Cox et al., 1991, p.827). In particular,
diverging points of view and preferences of team members may result in opposing ideas
or approaches to solve problems. Consequently, diverse teams may confront a considerable
amount of intra-team conflict, and it is likely that their members will show different
preferences towards dealing with these conflicts (e.g. Tjosvold and Wong, 2004). Even
though empirical research has analysed how differences in teams’ composition influence
team processes and outcomes as well as subjective well-being and attitudes of team
members (van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007), empirical understanding of the
relationship between diversity and intra-team conflict has been limited thus far. This
leads us to our first research question: How does diversity influence intra-team conflicts?
Diversity and conflict in teams
419
Although several factors may influence the relationship between diversity and
intra-team conflicts, we focus on the critical – and surprisingly understudied – role of
the contextual surrounding of teams in this study. Milliken and Martins (1996, p.403)
emphasise, that diversity “appears to be a double-edged sword, increasing the opportunity
for creativity as well as the likelihood that group members will be dissatisfied and fail
to identify with the group”. We argue that one major weakness of existing diverse-team
research is that it fails to provide an answer to the question under which contextual
conditions which side of the sword reveals. Although there have been claims for a
stronger consideration of contextual influence and its possible moderating role for team
processes since many years (e.g. Gladstein, 1984; McGrath, 1984; Bettenhausen, 1991;
Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Jelinek and Wilson, 2005), this is still a gap in literature
(van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007). However, teams are organisational units that are
embedded in a larger system (e.g. a company), have fuzzy boundaries, and are therefore
connected to their environmental context. Thus, they are not immune against effects from
their surroundings, but rather they are influenced by actions that occur outside their
boundaries. Consequently, we argue that the relationship between diversity and intrateam conflict is moderated by the contextual surrounding of the teams. This leads us
to our second research question: How does the organisational context influence the
relationship between diversity and intra-team conflicts?
Building on a contingency approach, we investigate the link between team diversity
(i.e. informational and social-category diversity) and intra-team conflicts (i.e. relationship,
task and process conflict), considering possible contingencies, i.e. moderating effects of
the surrounding organisational context of teams. We focus on organisational openness
and supportiveness as contingencies that may have crucial effects on team processes. We
expect them to influence the diversity-conflict relationship because both variables are
believed to strongly influence the way in which people interact and work with each other
(Hofstede et al., 1990; Cox, 1994).
This quantitative study provides the foundation for two sets of contributions: First,
we add to the current understanding of how different types of diversity influence intrateam conflicts. Second, this study contributes to an understanding that the relationship
between diversity and conflicts is embedded in the organisational context and thus, may
be influenced by contextual contingencies.
2
Theoretical framework and hypotheses
Previous research suggests that interactions among individuals with diverse perspectives
and viewpoints about different tasks may lead to the creation of new insights and the
emergence of knowledge (e.g. Levine and Resnick, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
However, the challenge that teams face is to learn how to use their inherent diversity as a
competitive advantage and not as a disadvantage, for example, as a trigger for conflicts
within the team. The model derived for this study is based on a contingency approach,
stating that outcomes of organisational structures (such as teams) do not remain stable
under different external contingencies (e.g. Galbraith, 1973; Wong and Birnbaum-More,
1994). The contingency approach argues that a given situation influences a particular
behaviour and that this relationship is moderated by structural conditions or – in other
words – contingencies (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). As
given situations one may define tasks, team composition, or organisational aspects
420
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
(e.g. Gladstein, 1984). This study limits its focus on team composition aspects (i.e.
demographic diversity). Thus, the situational factors of this model are the heterogeneity
of teams with respect to informational and social category diversity. Team behaviours
may be interactions among team members, such as communication and conflict. In this
study, three different types of conflict (i.e. task, relationship and process) are considered.
Finally, the model takes into account possible structural conditions (contingencies)
defined by two contextual factors on the organisational level. Figure 1 summarises the
research model for this study.
Figure 1
Research model
Situation
Behaviour
Task
Conflict
Informational
Diversity (H1)
Relationship
Conflict
Social Category
Diversity (H2)
Process
Conflict
Organisational context:
•Supportiveness (H3a)
•Openness (H3b)
Contingencies
2.1 Team diversity and team conflicts
Although quite a lot of research has been done in the field of diversity in teams, relatively
little is known about the relationship between diversity and team conflicts and how this
relationship is moderated by contingencies on the organisational level. Hence, we
develop a deeper understanding of this relationship in the remainder of the paper. To do
so, we first draw on diversity literature and second, on conflict literature. In a third
step, we build on organisational supportiveness and openness literature as potential
contingencies moderating this relationship.
2.1.1 Diversity in teams
The concept of diversity has received ample attention from various disciplines, resulting
in several excellent recent reviews of the demography, diversity, team process and
performance/effectiveness, and conflict literature exist, which aim at giving possible
explanations for the highly inconsistent findings of past team research (e.g. Thomas,
Diversity and conflict in teams
421
1992; Milliken and Martins, 1996; Williams and O’Reilly III, 1998; McGrath et al.,
2000; Marks et al., 2001; Garcia-Prieto et al., 2003; Jackson et al., 2003; Kerr and
Tindale, 2004; Ilgen et al., 2005; van Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007).
One explanation why previous diversity research yielded inconsistent findings may
be found in the way in which the construct ‘diversity’ was defined and/or measured. For
example, Garcia-Prieto et al. (2003, p.414) state, that eventually “this ‘diversity paradox’
can be explained by how diversity is defined”. While past research has generally focused
on diversity as a single continuum, ranging from homogeneous to heterogeneous, more
recent research has made distinctions between specific aspects of diversity (Ilgen et al.,
2005). As the creation of a more comprehensive understanding of problems appears to
depend on the existence of certain diversity aspects, this study focuses on two types of
diversity discussed in past research: informational diversity and social category diversity
(e.g. Jehn et al., 1999). According to Jehn et al. (1999, p.743) informational diversity
“refers to differences in knowledge bases and perspectives that members bring to the
group. Such differences are likely to arise as a function of differences among group
members in education, experience, and expertise”. Individual characteristics, such as age,
gender and ethnicity, form another type of diversity that has been labelled social category
diversity (e.g. Jackson, 1992; Pelled, 1996). These obvious and “explicit social category
membership characteristics provide a particularly salient basis by which individuals
can categorise themselves and others” (Jehn et al., 1999, p.745). Each individual’s mind,
cultural norms, and consequently, values are shaped as a result of social category
membership (Hofstede, 2001). Thus, social category diversity may act as an indicator of
distinct underlying values of team members.
2.1.2 Intra-team conflicts
Before the linkages between each of the above mentioned diversity types and conflict
will be illuminated, a closer look at the literature on team conflict has to be done, as
“there is still no consensus within the literature on a precise definition of conflict”
(Thomas, 1992, p.653). As team members contribute to their team – willingly or
unwillingly – through different kinds of inputs, such as social inputs and task inputs
(e.g. Forsyth, 1983), conflict in teams is multidimensional and often categorised along
the lines of relationship and task issues (e.g. Amason, 1996; Amason and Sapienza, 1997;
Jehn, 1997; de Dreu and Weingart, 2003). Consequently, there seem to be at least two
types of conflict – relationship and task conflicts. Relationship conflict – also referred to
as affective or interpersonal conflict – is characterised by components such as tension,
friction, dislike, annoyance, frustration and irritation among team members (Jehn
and Mannix, 2001). It emphasises the negative emotions resulting from personal
incompatibilities or disputes (Amason, 1996; de Dreu and van Vianen, 2001) and
therefore, reflects the potential inability of team members to work well together
(e.g. Simons and Peterson, 2000). In contrast, task conflict – sometimes referred to as
substantive or cognitive conflict – consists of the expression of differences in viewpoints,
ideas and opinions that are directly related to the team task and its accomplishment
(e.g. Amason and Sapienza, 1997; Jehn and Mannix, 2001). Task conflict often includes
the perception of disagreements among team members concerning the content of their
decisions as the team moves towards a collective decision (e.g. Simons and Peterson,
2000). Recent studies have identified a third unique type of conflict, labelled process
conflict (e.g. Shah and Jehn, 1993; Jehn, 1997; Jehn et al., 1999). Jehn (1997) defines
422
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
process conflict as “conflict about how task accomplishment should proceed in the work
unit, who’s responsible for what, and how things should be delegated. Process conflict
includes disagreements about assignments of duties or resources” (p.540).
2.1.3 Team diversity and its impact on team conflicts
Teams that form naturally in organisations use criteria such as similarity, proximity,
or familiarity as bases for team formation (Jehn et al., 1999). This typically results in an
over-selection of individuals from similar or shared social networks, which may have
more redundant as opposed to diversified knowledge bases, perspectives and experiences
(e.g. Granovetter, 1974). Consequently, it is likely that these teams lack diversity,
reducing their potential for effective problem-solving, learning and new insights (e.g.
Jackson, 1992). In order to increase informational diversity in the team, organisations
try to actively form cross-functional teams or use techniques such as job-rotation.
However, even if organisations intentionally manage team membership, teams often fail
to take advantage of the potential benefits of informational diversity (Hackman, 1990).
For instance, Ancona and Caldwell (1992) found lower team managers’ ratings of
innovativeness in functionally diverse teams, than in homogeneous ones. Thus, diverse
teams are often ineffective at capitalising on the potential benefits of their informational
diversity.
A possible reason, why teams often prove ineffective at capitalising on informational
diversity, may be the fact that “what makes a group informational diverse may also
prevent the group from realising the benefits of its informational diversity” (Jehn et al.,
1999, p.744). For example, it is most likely that team members with an accounting
background will differ extremely in identifying and evaluating alternative solutions
from members with a R&D background. Consequently, teams with functionally diverse
members are likely to face higher amounts of task and process conflicts, as disagreements
about resources and delegations are more likely to arise. For instance, Jehn et al. (1997)
showed that for teams with a high degree of educational diversity (i.e. educational
majors) it was more difficult to agree upon how to proceed, than for teams in which the
educational backgrounds of members were more similar.
Also, informational diversity may trigger the emergence of relationship conflict
(Jehn and Mannix, 2001). This may happen, as sometimes team members might misinterpret
or misperceive statements of other team members as attacks that may lead to relationship
conflict. Furthermore, Keller (2001) showed that cross-functional teams create stress,
which in turn lowers cohesiveness. The presence of increased stress levels in such teams
may additionally trigger the emergence of relationship conflicts. Summarising the above,
the following hypothesis is derived:
Hypothesis 1: Informational diversity will increase task, process and relationship conflict
in teams.
Social category diversity (e.g. Jackson, 1992; Pelled, 1996) is likely to provoke social
categorisation processes based on social identity effects (e.g. Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and
Turner, 1986). According to social identity theory, social categorisation processes take
place, as team members prefer to interact with members of their own social category and
thus, create positive social identity, which in turn approves membership to the respective
social category (Billig and Tajfel, 1973). Through these processes, social category
diversity may lead to self-segregation and/or discrimination of out-group members,
Diversity and conflict in teams
423
which in turn hinders team interaction and potential positive team outcomes. Thus, social
identity categories provide a naturally existing basis for ‘faultlines’ (Lau and Murnighan,
1998), which in turn may trigger conflicts. Immanent between-team faultlines lead to
feelings such as hostility against members that are not part of the in-group, and can
manifest itself in relationship conflicts.
While Jehn et al. (1999) hypothesise a positive relationship between social category
diversity and the presence of relationship conflict in teams only, this study argues that
social category diversity may also account for other types of conflict. As social category
diversity in teams increases, it is likely that underlying value-concepts of team members
diverge. Therefore, a higher level of disagreements on various aspects of a team’s tasks
may be the consequence. Disagreements – again – may arise regarding both task content
(i.e. task conflict) and issues concerned with resources and/or delegation aspects
(i.e. process conflict).
Hackman (1990) stated that interpersonal relationships within a team are encouraged
by similar goals and values of team members. Extending the above reasoning to this
notion, in a reversal conclusion, it can be argued that dissimilarity in goals and values
deriving from social category diversity is likely to increase relationship conflict in teams.
Furthermore, Cox (1994) argues that cultural differences may be one source of intra-team
conflict. Misunderstandings and/or misperceptions will increase in teams with high social
category diversity due to cognitive differences or different worldviews of distinct cultural
groups. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Social category diversity will increase task, process and relationship
conflict in teams.
2.2 Moderating effects of contextual contingencies
So far, there is only limited evidence about contingencies on the work of teams
(see Cohen and Bailey, 1997, for a review), although teams are obviously operating in
the context of their organisational settings (e.g. Collins and Clark, 2003; Zellmer-Bruhn
and Gibson, 2006). Gladstein (1984), for example, showed that the compensation of team
members influences team processes such as task assignment or working norms. In line
with the contingency approach, Judge and Miller (1991) found firm size and the
dynamics of a firm’s environment to also have an influence on the speed of decision
making. Also, previous research shows, that external contingencies – i.e. the set of
“overarching structures and systems external to the team that facilitate or inhibit its
work” (Denison et al., 1999, p.1006) – have an important impact on internal team
processes. Although existing research on organisational-level contingencies and conflicts
is sparse, research more broadly concerning contexts for internal team processes supports
the value of considering macro organisational context variables in studies of intra-team
conflicts. For instance, organisational practices, norms, symbols and traditions are
acknowledged to provide substance to collective self-perceptions (e.g. Dutton et al.,
1994) influencing a team’s internal processes. Also, a number of studies show that
organisational culture has strong effects on work and behaviour in firms (e.g. Erdogan
et al., 2002; Ravasi and Schultz, 2006).
Thus, one major contingency of the diversity-conflict relationship may be the degree
of organisational support [an element of organisational culture (Hofstede et al., 1990)],
which teams receive to accomplish their tasks. When support for teams is scarce,
424
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
increased debates, for example, about the allocation of resources may be expected.
It can be argued that one reason for conflicts in teams is the competition for resources
(Cox, 1994). Furthermore, if teams lack important support in order to solve problems
effectively or to value diversity, increased relationship conflicts may be the consequence.
Additionally, as supportiveness may directly influence team learning behaviour, it is
likely that teams with high degrees of organisational supportiveness will show higher
empathy and thus, face less conflict caused by informational or social category diversity.
Therefore, it is hypothesised:
Hypothesis 3a: High degrees of organisational supportiveness for teams will moderate
the effects of informational and social category diversity on conflicts, such as to decrease
the positive associations between diversity and conflict (H1 and H2).
We argue that organisational openness [an element of organisational culture (Hofstede
et al., 1990)] is a second contingency on the organisational level that may influence the
diversity – conflict relation. As culture supports and guides the search and interpretation
of information (Harris, 1994), organisational members respond more actively to the
presence and absence of behaviours that are at the core of its culture. Secondly, culture
operates as a social control mechanism (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1996). If the behaviour
of team members deviates from cultural norms, this is soon realised and corrected
(Sorensen, 2002). Thus, if organisational culture emphasises openness, individuals act in
an environment which is characterised through openness and therefore, it is likely that
they feel valued and respected (Ely and Thomas, 2001). Moreover, the minority team
density (i.e. the “percentage representation of a minority group in the total population of
a social system”; Cox, 1994, p.145) is likely to be higher in ‘open’ organisations as this
openness may reflect a value-in-diversity perspective. Individuals in such organisations
will less likely feel assimilated by co-workers or the organisation they work in. Thus, as
assimilation versus preservation of micro cultural identity is a potential source of conflict
in and between teams (Cox, 1994), it is likely that ‘open’ organisations will face lower
levels of conflict in diverse teams. Consequently, it can be hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 3b: Organisational cultures that are ‘closed systems’ will moderate the
effects of informational and social category diversity on conflicts in teams, such as to
increase the positive associations between diversity and conflict (H1 and H2).
3
Methods
3.1 Data and sample
Primary data has been gathered from a sample of managers and employees that have
been pre-selected according to the following conditions: Potential respondents who
worked in multinational organisations were accepted to participate in the survey, only if
they worked in teams that consisted of at least three members. Respondents had to
answer questions assessing the variables described below on five-point Likert-type
scales. Data has been processed and analysed with the statistical software SPSS 14
(Statistical Product and Service Solution).
A total of 114 members representing 27 different full teams responded to the
questionnaire. Respondents had a mean age of 31.29 years (SD = 8.51), a mean company
tenure of 45.73 months (SD = 63.56) and a mean team tenure of 24.60 months
Diversity and conflict in teams
425
(SD = 36.61); 42.1% of the respondents were women; 18.4% of the participants were
team leaders. The team size (including the team leader) ranged from three to seven
individuals. Respondents were members from 27 different organisations and/or companies
(from small enterprises to large multinational corporations), which were based in
ten different countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Singapore,
Turkey, UK and USA). Respondents worked in organisations from 14 different business
sectors (including public services, banking, consulting and production).
The survey was web-based. The decision for using a web-based survey is based on its
advantages as stated by Dillman (2000), which are for instance, the reduction of time
required for implementation and the limitations of costs for surveying additional
respondents. Following the design guidelines strictly for web-based surveys by Dillman
(2000) helped us to deal with potential disadvantages of this type of data collection;
for instance, that not all participants are equally computer literate or that screen
configurations may differ depending on the individual computer settings (Dillman,
2000). We dealt with the major concern that participants could not be reached due to
wrong email addresses (Dillman, 2000) by verifying the email addresses with the team
leaders. Before sending out the relevant invitation to the survey (including the survey
link), each team was contacted individually to ascertain availability and disposition to
participate in the survey (Dillman, 2000). Then, the official invitation email, including
the survey link, was sent out. Two weeks after this first official email, a reminder was
sent out to those members who had not yet responded (Dillman, 2000). To ensure the
assignment and eventual aggregation of individual responses to a team level of the
respective team they belong to, each hyperlink was coded with a specific team parameter
(Team ID) in order to identify responses that come from one and the same team.
Additionally, respondents were asked to provide a unique team name for their team in the
questionnaire. Due to these provisions, all the questionnaires could be assigned to their
respective Team IDs. After 12 weeks the survey was closed.
To reduce possible common method bias stemming from item characteristics, such as
item context effects, item priming effects or item embeddedness (Podsakoff et al., 2003);
the position of items of each construct was automatically altered by the survey software.
To achieve such a ‘counterbalancing question order’ (Podsakoff et al., 2003, p.888),
the position of each item relative to the other items of each construct was altered
automatically and thus, different for each respondent. However, items of different
constructs have not been mixed, due to complex and possible negative outcomes related
to this practice.
The developed questionnaire was pilot-tested with a random sample of participants
(NT = 25) not taking part in the actual survey to ensure the clarity of the questions
and instructions. To avoid ethnocentric bias (Clark et al., 1999) during the design of
the questionnaire, the pilot-test sample consisted of individuals from different
cultural backgrounds (i.e. from the UK, USA, Germany, Malaysia and Australia). The
questionnaire has been designed using items in English language from renowned
academic journals (see measures section for details). On the basis of the received
pilot-test feedback, alterations to the questionnaire were implemented where necessary
(for example, the introductory texts of each page and some of the labels of the scales
were refined and/or modified). Also, the pilot test was used to test if the conduct of the
survey in English would be an issue. This was not the case, which can be explained by
the fact that all respondents were used to communicating in English in their daily work.
426
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
3.2 Measures
This section presents details on the measures used in the questionnaire. First, measures
for the independent variables (i.e. informational and social category diversity) are illustrated.
Second, the scales that measured the dependent variables (i.e. task, relationship and
process conflict) will be presented. Third, measures of the moderator variables are
explained. Finally, different control variables are illuminated.
We employed two types of work team diversity indices: one for numeric demographic
data and another for categorical demographic data. All demographic data has been
obtained from the online questionnaire. Following the suggestion of Allison (1978), the
coefficient of variation was used to measure age diversity and the diversity of the number
of years of education within each team. For example, to assess age diversity within
teams, each team’s standard deviation of age has been divided by the team’s mean age.
Using this approach for numerical demographic data is common practice in numerous
team studies (e.g. Pelled et al., 1999; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2004).
Additionally, following past research (e.g. Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Jehn et al.,
1999; Pelled et al., 1999; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2004), team diversity with respect to
categorical demographic data (e.g. nationality, ethnicity and gender) was measured using
an entropy-based index recommended by Teachman (1980):
I
H = −∑ Pi ⋅ (ln Pi ) .
i =1
The total number of categories of a variable equals I, while Pi is the fraction of team
members falling into category i. The index captures how team members are distributed
among the possible categories of a variable. For example, the gender variable has two
possible categories (I = 2): ‘1’ corresponds to a female and ‘2’ to a male individual.
If a given team of ten members has three women and seven men, then P1 equals .3,
P2 equals .7 and H equals .61. In contrast, if a team of ten members has only one woman
and nine men, then P1 equals .1, P2 equals .9. Consequently, H equals .33, reflecting
a lower diversity within the team. The higher the diversity index is, the greater the
distribution of characteristics within the team, and vice versa. In this study, the
Teachman (1980) index has been used to measure the diversity regarding ethnicity,
functional background, position and gender of each team.
As discussed above, two aggregated team-level measures of diversity have been
formed: informational diversity assessed the diversity of teams regarding education
(i.e. years of major education), functional area in the organisation (e.g. marketing, finance)
and position in the firm (e.g. senior management, assistant). Social category diversity
assessed the heterogeneity of teams regarding sex and age. In addition, we integrated
ethnic diversity in the social category diversity measure. Thus, the present study was able
to extend the social category diversity measure as suggested by Jehn et al. (1999).
In this study, intra-team conflict has been measured by 11 items. Task and relationship
conflict were measured by eight items based on Jehn’s (1995) intra-team conflict scale.
The eight items which measured the presence of task and relationship conflict were rated
on five-point Likert scales, anchored by 1 = ‘none’ and 5 = ‘a lot.’ Both constructs
showed a high internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .82 and .88). Process conflict was
measured by three items taken from Jehn et al. (1999; originally derived by Shah and
Jehn, 1993). The items measured the presence of process conflict on five-point Likert
scales, anchored by 1 = ‘none’ and 5 = ‘a lot’ (Cronbach’s α = .81). The supportiveness
Diversity and conflict in teams
427
of the organisational context of teams was measured, including items taken from Hyatt
and Ruddy (1997). Six items measured the extent to which the team members receive
support from their organisational context. These items were rated on five-point Likert
scales (Cronbach’s α = .89). Respondents were asked to assess team support as the
extent to which the team members receive: “ … encouragement, coaching, counselling,
and administrative assistance from their manager”; “ … technical and organizational
assistance from their team coordinator or a designated team member”; “ … resources that
make success possible”; “ … all information necessary for effective job performance”; “
… help in using the information for continuous improvement”; “ … help in upgrading
knowledge, skills and abilities”.
Organisational Openness was measured on five-point Likert scales (Cronbach’s
α = .60) using three items suggested by Hofstede et al. (1990).
We included two control variables because their influence on team process has been
identified by past research. One important measure to include as a control variable was
team size. Team research literature has noted that size is a key variable influencing team
dynamics, communication and performance; and because larger teams have more
potential for heterogeneity and for social loafing (e.g. Blau, 1977; Brewer and Kramer,
1986; Goodman et al., 1986; Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Jackson et al. 1991). All
respondents were asked ‘What is the size of your team (including the team leader)?’
As a further control variable task type (i.e. task routiness) was included, because the
nature of team tasks often influences team interactions and performance (e.g. Katz, 1982;
Weingart, 1992). As complex tasks require higher levels of debate and problem-solving
than routine and repetitive tasks, it is likely that task type will influence the level of
conflict within teams. To assess task routiness vs. complexity of the tasks the teams in the
sample dealt with, three items (reverse-coded) were included in the questionnaire,
analogously to the study of Pelled et al. (1999). The Cronbach’s α in the present study
was .49. While some scholars ask for values exceeding the .50 or .60 barrier, the value of
.49 compares well with several other studies. For example Rahim (1983) reported the
Cronbach α values for several conflict handling style scales, of which one was only .37.
Thus, the task routiness scale was included in the analysis. The items, rated on five-point
scales, comprised: “The technology, required skills, and information needed by the team
are constantly changing.” [reverse-coded]; “During a normal work week, exceptions
frequently arise that require substantially different methods or procedures for the team.”
[reverse-coded]; “Frequent interaction between team members is needed to do our work
effectively” [reverse-coded].
4
Results
4.1 Preliminary analysis
To check for multicollinearity, Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations as well
as the bivariate Pearson correlates among all variables. Although there are significant
inter-variable correlations among the independent variables, none of the coefficients
exceed .40. Thus, due to the low levels of inter-variable correlation, multicollinearity
does not appear to be a serious problem. Similarly, the results of using each variable
as dependent variable within the regression analyses also suggested low levels of
multicollinearity.
Social category diversity
Supportiveness
Openness
Team size
Task type
5
6
7
8
9
n = 114; *p < .05; **p < .01.
Informational diversity
4
Notes:
Task conflict
Process conflict
2
2.49
4.22
2.23
3.47
.45
.56
2.18
2.32
2.11
3
Mean
Relationship conflict
1
SD
.73
1.51
.95
.84
.17
.25
.92
.80
.96
–.110
.185*
.322**
–.281**
–.300**
.285**
.686**
.646**
–
1
–.331**
.237**
.347**
–.343**
–.123
.236*
.766**
–
2
–.247**
.268**
.204*
–.386**
–.250**
.235*
–
3
–.035
.264**
.153
–.069
–.055
–
4
–.056
–.173
.027
.052
–
5
.152
–.014
–.208*
–
6
–.227*
–.019
–
7
–.089
–
8
–
9
Table 1
Variables
428
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
Means, standard deviations and correlates of central variables
Diversity and conflict in teams
429
4.2 Tests of hypothesis
To test the hypotheses, hierarchical multiple regression procedures have been used. This
technique can be applied when researchers want to test a theoretical model and the order
of entry of variables into the equation is based on theoretical rationale (Newton and
Rudestam, 1999). As this study developed a theoretical framework based on a contingency
approach, this procedure seems appropriate. In total, three hierarchical multiple regression
models (one for every dependent variable, i.e. task, relationship and process conflict)
have been formed (e.g. Newton and Rudestam, 1999; Cohen et al., 2003).
Each hierarchical regression consisted of three steps. In a first step, control variables
were entered in the regression model. In a second step, the independent variables
(i.e. informational and social category diversity) and the moderator variables (contingencies)
were entered. This is necessary because if moderator effects are tested, one must also
control for the main effect of the moderator variable itself (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In a
third step, the interaction terms were entered in the regression model. Moderator effects
are indicated by significant effects of interaction terms while direct effects of the
moderator and the independent variable are controlled (Baron and Kenny, 1986). The
question of effect size of an interaction term can either be addressed by running
two independent regressions or by running a hierarchical regression: An examination
of the R2 change statistics and the significance of this change is equivalent to running
two different regressions and subtracting the R2 values (Newton and Rudestam, 1999).
Table 2 shows the results of the regressions.
Hypothesis 1 suggested a positive influence of informational diversity on all three
types of conflict. In each of the three models, the introduction of the main variables
yielded a highly significant change in R2, indicated by the F change statistic. For the case
of relationship conflict, the introduction of main variables led to a change in R2 of .250,
which was significant at the .001 level (F change 9.441). The total variance explained by
the model, therefore was increased to 29.3% (adjusted R2 .253). Supporting Hypothesis 1,
informational diversity had a positive effect (.194) on the emergence of relationship
conflict in teams, which was significant at the .1 level. However, in the second model,
where the introduction of the main variables led to a change in R2 of .165 (significant at
the .001 level, F change 6.613) and thus, the model explained 33.4% of the variance
(adjusted R2 .297), the influence of informational diversity on task conflict was positive
(.116) but not significant. In the third model, predicting process conflict, the introduction
of the main variables led to a change in R2 of .193 (significant at the .001 level, F change
7.519) and thus, the model was able to explain 31.4% of the variance (adjusted R2 .193).
The influence of informational diversity on task conflict was positive (.165) and
significant at the .1 level, as observed in the case of relationship conflict. Consequently,
Hypothesis 1 was partly supported by the data (i.e. for the cases of relationship and
process conflict).
Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive influence of social category diversity on all three
types of conflict. As explained above, the introduction of main variables at the second
step led to statistically highly significant changes in R2 for each of the models. In the first
model, predicting relationship conflict, social category diversity had a negative effect on
the dependent variable (–.272), which had a significance on the .01 level. In the second
model, employing task conflict as the dependent variable, social category diversity also
had a negative effect, but not at a significant level. Finally, in the third model, predicting
process conflict, the effect of social category diversity was negative (–.207) and
430
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
significant at the .01 level. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported in any of the models.
Although social category diversity had significant impact on two of three dependent
variables, the effects were contrary to the predicted ones. Rather than positive, social
category diversity had significant negative impact on the emergence of relationship and
process conflict.
Table 2
Hierarchical multiple regressions for group diversity predicting conflict moderated by
contextual contingencies
Relationship conflict
Task conflict
Process conflict
Team Size
.176†
.246**
.248**
Task Type
–.094
–.309**
–.225*
R2
.043
.169
.122
Step 1: Controls
Adjusted R
2
.026
.155
.106
2.484†
11.325***
7.698**
.194*
.116
.135†
Social Category Div. (SD)
–.272**
–.086
–.207**
Supportiveness (SUP)
–.196*
–.245**
–.320**
Openness (OP)
.255**
.234**
.088
F
Step 2: Main effects
Informational Div. (ID)
Change in R
2
F change
.250
.165
.193
9.441***
6.613***
7.519***
R2
.293
.334
.314
Adjusted R2
.253
.297
.193
4.281***
8.947***
8.181***
ID × SUP
.367
–.392
.162
ID × OP
.447
.119
.509†
SD × SUP
.222
.431
.415
–.801**
–.653*
–.823**
F
Step 3: Interaction effects
SD × OP
Change in R
F change
2
.077
.062
.093
3.132*
2.666*
4.049**
R2
.369
.397
.408
Adjusted R2
.308
.338
.350
6.030***
6.769***
7.088***
F
Notes:
†
p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
N = 114, standardised coefficients shown.
Hypothesis 3a proposed that high degrees of organisational supportiveness for teams will
moderate the effects of informational and social category diversity on conflicts, such as
to decrease the positive associations between diversity and conflict. The date revealed
no significant interaction effect between supportiveness and diversity for any type of
conflict. Hence, Hypothesis 3a was not supported by the data.
Diversity and conflict in teams
431
Hypothesis 3b stated that organisational cultures that are ‘closed systems’ will moderate
the effects of informational and social category diversity on conflicts, such as to increase
the positive associations between diversity and conflict. In regards to informational
diversity, only one significant interaction effect was found in any of the models and on a
low level of significance. However, regarding the interaction effects of organisational
culture and social category, significant negative interaction effects for all three types of
conflict were revealed by the data. In addition, the introduction of the diversity-context
interaction terms was able to significantly add to the variance explained by the main
effects of diversity and context variables in all three models. Thus, Hypothesis 3b was
partly supported by the data.
5
Discussion
Our study extends previous research on the relationship between diversity and team
processes to the setting of diversity – intra-team conflict linkages. In general, our
findings reinforce the importance of research into a more distinctive understanding of
diversity (e.g. Garcia-Prieto et al., 2003) as well as the importance of contingency factors
as contextual settings for diverse teams. We turn now to discussing the implications of
our key findings in more detail.
First, this study suggests that that informational diversity has a positive influence
on the emergence of relationships and process conflict whereas no significant influence
was found for task conflict (partly support of Hypothesis 1). The non-significant effect
on task conflict is very surprising, as the study of Jehn et al. (1997) demonstrated that
differences in educational background increased task-related discussions in teams.
Furthermore, as knowledge bases differ and disagreements about task-related issues are
likely to arise, higher levels of task conflict should be the consequence. However,
positive relationships were only found for the effects of informational diversity on
relationship and process conflict. One explanation might be that relationship and process
conflicts have been triggered by task conflict and were the dominant type of conflict in
the respective teams at the point of the survey. Another explanation might be that due
to social categorisation processes (e.g. Tajfel, 1982) on the basis of team members’
educational or functional background or the heterogeneity of education, individuals have
only little empathy for members of other social categories. Thus, relationship conflict
may be the predominant type of conflict.
Secondly, Hypothesis 2 proposed that social category diversity will increase task,
process and relationship conflict in teams (and thus, predicting a positive effect of social
category diversity). According to social identity theory, one may expect that it is likely
that individuals group themselves due to social categorisation processes and prefer to
interact with members of their own social category (e.g. Billig and Tajfel, 1973; Tajfel,
1982). However, the data did not support the predicted relationship and thus, revealed
extremely opposing effects of social category diversity. We found two explanations for
the counter-intuitive findings that individuals do not group themselves due to social
categorisation processes and do not prefer to interact with members of their own social
category. First, it might be that respondents of this survey were individuals with high
432
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
cultural empathy and eventually had much experience in dealing with intercultural issues.
Given the tendency towards a global business environment, it is much more likely that
individuals working together in a diverse team have international experience they can
rely on, as this was the case a few years ago. In negotiation-simulations across various
countries, Bird and Stevens (2003) show that within the world business community,
an identifiable and homogenous group is emerging that shares a common set of values,
attitudes, norms and behaviours, which overrule the diverse cultural backgrounds of the
individuals. Cross-cultural differences no longer matter in every single situation as
culturally-experienced individuals know how to deal with cross-cultural issues in team
interactions (Neyer and Harzing, 2008). They might therefore value diversity and see
it as an opportunity to learn about foreign cultures and apply a value-in-diversity
perspective. In this case, social category diversity may not be causal for the emergence of
any type of conflict involved. Secondly, it might be the case that respondents of this
survey where members of organisations that highly value diversity (Ely and Thomas,
2001). Therefore, this study suggests, similar to Williams and O’Reilly (1998) and Jehn
et al. (1999) that the effects of diversity go beyond simple main effects. To gain a deeper
understanding of potential contingencies as contextual surrounding of the diversityconflict relations, we tested the moderating effects of organisational supportiveness and
organisational openness.
The results of this study show that effects of diversity on team processes can vary
significantly depending on organisational level contingencies. Interestingly, we have
not found a significant moderating effect of organisational supportiveness on the
diversity-conflict relation. We expected that teams which benefit from a high degree of
supportiveness by their surrounding organisational context, i.e. resources, counselling,
etc. are able to effectively deal with opposing viewpoints (both social category and
informational diversity) and thus, may prevent conflicts to arise. However, our analysis
shows that these HR-oriented tools do not moderate the diversity-conflict relation.
Our assumption that organisational supportiveness is an important contingency in the
diversity-conflict relation is thus, not supported by our data. Second, our data reveal that
organisational openness significantly moderates the relation between social category
diversity and all types of conflicts. This supports the findings of past research (e.g.
Hofstede et al., 1990; Cox, 1994; Ely and Thomas, 2001; Lovelace et al., 2001) that
there are dimensions of organisational cultures that have a considerable impact on
team functioning. Contrary to that finding, only a weak interaction effect on the relation
between informational diversity and process conflict was found, while effects on task and
relationship conflict were not significant. Effects of informational diversity on conflict
thus, do not depend on this specific contingency in our study. In combination with the
results of Hypothesis 3a, this finding can be interpreted as a first hindsight that the
contingencies of the diversity-conflict relation differ depending on the type of diversity
observed.
This also suggests some preliminary implications for practice. The finding that
organisational openness moderated the relationship between social category diversity and
all three types of conflict shows that managers and/or organisations might be able to
influence the emergence of conflict in teams by intentionally creating organisational
cultures that impede conflict in teams. Secondly, anticipating the result that informational
Diversity and conflict in teams
433
diversity was positively related to relationship conflict may be crucial for team managers
or organisations in order to effectively manage employee’s differences in informational
background. If it is possible for team managers to predict the effect of team diversity
on the emergence of conflicts in teams, they might be able to prevent conflicts by
implementing appropriate team techniques or by creating a context that impairs the
appearance of conflict.
However, when interpreting the results of the study, one has to be aware that the
effect of conflict in teams is not always dysfunctional. Whereas one strand of research
clearly shows that conflict can be detrimental for team performance (e.g. Bettenhausen,
1991; Jehn, 1997; Jehn et al., 1999; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003), another strand of
research suggests that conflict can enhance team performance under certain conditions.
For instance, Jehn and Mannix (2001, p.238) found in a longitudinal study that, “teams
performing well were characterised by low but increasing levels of conflict, low levels of
relationship conflict, with a rise near project deadlines, and moderate levels of task
conflict at the midpoint of group interaction”. Additionally, Simons and Peterson (2000)
summarise the literature by noting that groups who experience task conflict tend to make
better decisions, as such conflict encourages greater cognitive understanding of the issue
being considered. Therefore, a single focus on the avoidance of conflict seems to be not
sufficient. Companies may thus combine their activities to reduce conflict with efforts
to teach effective conflict handling styles (Kellermanns et al., 2008) and diversity
management techniques to enhance the performance of their diverse teams. For example,
companies should explicitly inform their employees about the value that lies in diversity,
as pro-diversity beliefs can positively affect the performance of diverse teams (Homan
et al., 2007). In summary, a more nuanced understanding of when what type of conflicts
turns out to be fruitful or not, is needed.
6
Limitations and future research directions
As with most research, our study has several limitations. One limitation is the relatively
small sample size. Even though we found strong and significant effects in our sample,
future studies should try to analyse contingencies using a larger sample, including teams
and team members from different countries. In addition, the index calculated to measure
diversity employed in this study might be limited by some aspect. For example, the
adopted Teachman (1980) entropy-based index is not a standardised index. Thus,
problems of aggregation might occur when overall measures of diversity have been
formed. Also, the study included no measure of underlying diversity (Jackson et al.,
2003), such as value diversity, which was explicitly considered by Jehn et al. (1999).
Thus, the present study employs diversity indices as proxies for underlying value
diversity, which might in fact differ among individuals, even within specific cultures
(e.g. transnational subcultures). Additionally, a limitation might be the focus on
organisational supportiveness and openness as contingencies. Future research should
look at other organisational-level contingencies as contextual moderators for the
diversity-conflict relation. One way to discover relevant contingencies may be a mixedmethod approach: qualitative research techniques could be applied to derive relevant
434
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
contingencies; quantitative methods could then be used to test the effects against a larger
sample. Also, future research might investigate the effects of organisational culture in
more detail, as significant moderator effects of organisational openness on the emergence
of process conflict has been found in the present study. This could be achieved by
including all of the 18 practice items of organisational culture, identified by Hofstede
et al. (1990). Hence, further knowledge regarding other dimensions of organisational
culture could be revealed. Additionally, further measures of organisational contingencies,
such as business strategies, business sector, and similar, could be included. Finally, future
studies should explicitly test for performance effects when analysing the relation between
diversity and conflict to strengthen the implications for both theory and practice.
Despite these limitations, a major strength of our study was its design. Whereas most
past studies were limited to single organisations and/or teams and did not test diversity
effects across different organisational contexts, our study covered teams from various
countries, business sectors, and organisations. An additional strength was our use of ‘real
world’ work team data given the extensive use of student samples or top management
teams (e.g. Bantel and Jackson, 1989). Finally, this research provides (to the best of our
knowledge) one of the first full tests of the relation of diversity and different types
of conflicts while considering contingencies factors as potential moderators. By testing
these important relationships, our study offers important implications for future conceptual
and empirical work on this topic.
7
Summary
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the link between team diversity
(i.e. informational and social category diversity) and intra-team conflicts (i.e. relationship,
task and process conflict), considering possible contingencies, for example, moderating
the effects of the surrounding organisational context of teams. By analysing 27 teams
from 10 different countries in our quantitative study, we can derive three lessons learned.
The first lesson learned is that within a globalised business community, social category
diversity among individuals might be overruled by the establishment of a common set of
values, attitudes, norms and behaviours of the internationally operating business people.
The second lesson learned is that the organisational context in which the teams are
operating influences the diversity-conflict relation. More importantly, our findings show
that different types of organisational contingencies, i.e. organisational supportiveness
and openness have different influences on the diversity-conflict relation. Additionally,
and this is the third lesson learned, our findings reveal that the extent of the influence of
the organisational context differs depending on the type of diversity, i.e. informational or
social category diversity. This has important implications for research and practice.
From a research perspective, the results of our study show that more research needs to be
done to examine additional contingencies of the diversity-conflict relation. From a
practitioner’s perspective, this paper leads to a number of consequences for the design of
team contexts, such as a supportive surrounding.
Diversity and conflict in teams
435
References
Allison, P.D. (1978) ‘Measures of inequality’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 43,
pp.865–880.
Amason, A.C. (1996) ‘Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp.123–148.
Amason, A.C. and Sapienza, H.J. (1997) ‘The effects of top management team size and interaction
norms on cognitive and affective conflict’, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp.495–516.
Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992) ‘Demography and design: predictors of new product team
performance’, Organization Science, Vol. 3, pp.321–341.
Bantel, K.A. and Jackson, S.E. (1989) ‘Top management and innovations in banking: does the
composition of the top team make a difference?’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10,
pp.107–124.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp.1173–1182.
Bettenhausen, K.L. (1991) ‘Five years of group research: what we have learned and what needs to
be addressed’, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp.345–381.
Billig, M. and Tajfel, H. (1973) ‘Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour’,
European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 3, pp.27–52.
Bird, A. and Stevens, M.J. (2003) ‘Toward an emergent global culture and the effects of
globalization on obsolescing national cultures’, Journal of International Management, Vol. 9,
pp.395–407.
Blau, P.M. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure, Free
Press, New York.
Brewer, M.B. and Kramer, R.M. (1986) ‘Choice behavior in social dilemmas: effects of social
identity, group size and decision framing’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 50, pp.543–549.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) The Management of Innovation, Tavistock, London.
Clark, T., Grant, D. and Heijltjes, M. (1999) ‘Researching comparative and international
human resource management’, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 29,
pp.6–23.
Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997) ‘What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from
the shop floor to the executive suite’, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp.239–290.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Erlbaum, Mahwah.
Collins, C.J. and Clark, K.D. (2003) ‘Strategic human resource practices, top management team
social networks and firm performance: the role of human resource practices in creating
organizational competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 6,
pp.740–751.
Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. and McLeod, P.L. (1991) ‘Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on
cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task’, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 34, pp.827–847.
Cox, T. (1994) Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research & Practice, Berrett-Koehler,
San Francisco.
de Dreu, C.K.W. and van Vianen, A.E.M. (2001) ‘Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22,
pp.309–328.
436
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
de Dreu, C.K. and Weingart, L.R. (2003) ‘Task versus relationship conflict, team performance
and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88,
pp.741–749.
Dillman, D.A. (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed., Wiley,
New York.
Denison, D.R., Hart, S.L. and Kahn, J.A. (1999) ‘From chimneys to cross-functional teams:
developing and validating a diagnostic model’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39,
pp.1005–1023.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.Y. (1994) ‘Organizational images and member
identification’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp.239–263.
Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001) ‘Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives
on work group processes and outcomes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46,
pp.229–273.
Erdogan, B., Liden, R.C. and Kraimer, M.L. (2002) ‘Justice and leader-member exchange:
the moderating role of organizational culture’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49,
pp.395–406.
Forsyth, D.R. (1983) An Introduction to Group Dynamics, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, Calif.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973) Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, UK.
Garcia-Prieto, P., Bellard, E. and Schneider, S.C. (2003) ‘Experiencing diversity, conflict and
emotions in teams’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 52, pp.413–440.
Gibson, C.B., Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E. and Schwab, D.P. (2003) ‘Team effectiveness in multinational
organizations: evaluation across contexts’, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 28,
pp.444–474.
Gladstein, D.L. (1984) ‘Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp.499–517.
Goodman, P.S., Ravlin, E.C. and Argote, L. (1986) ‘Current thinking about groups: setting the
stage for new ideas’, in Goodman, P.S. (Ed.): Designing Effective Work Groups, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, pp.1–33.
Granovetter, M.S. (1974) Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hackman, J. (1990) Groups that Work. And Those that Doesn't, Jossey-Bass Publishers,
San Francisco/Oxford.
Harris, S.G. (1994) ‘Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: a schema-based
perspective’, Organization Science, Vol. 5, pp.309–321.
Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences. International Differences in Work Related Values,
2nd ed., Sage, London/Beverly Hills.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990) ‘Measuring organizational cultures:
a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 35, pp.286–316.
Homan, A.C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G.A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007) ‘Bridging
faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration and performance in
diverse work groups’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp.1189–1199.
Hyatt, D.E. and Ruddy, T.M. (1997) ‘An examination of the relationship between work group
characteristics and performance: once more into the breech’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50,
pp.553–585.
Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. and Jundt, D. (2005) ‘Teams in organizations: from
input-process-output models to IMOI models’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56,
pp.517–543.
Diversity and conflict in teams
437
Jackson, S.E. (1992) ‘Team composition in organizations’, in Worchel, S., Wood, W.L. and
Simpson, J.A. (Eds) Group Process and Productivity, Sage, Newbury Park, pp.1–12.
Jackson, S. (1996) ‘The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams’, in West, M.A.
(Ed.): Handbook of Work Group Psychology, Wiley, Chichester, pp.53–75.
Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A. and Peyronnin, K. (1991) ‘Some
differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates
of recruitment, promotions and turnover’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76,
pp.675–689.
Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A. and Erhardt, N.L. (2003) ‘Recent research on team and organizational
diversity: SWOT analysis and implications’, Journal of Management, Vol. 29, pp.801–830.
Jehn, K.A. (1995) ‘A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp.256–282.
Jehn, K.A. (1997) ‘A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45, pp.530–557.
Jehn, K.A. and Bezrukova, K. (2004) ‘A field study of group diversity, workgroup context and
performance’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 25, pp.703–729.
Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C. and Thatcher, S.M.B. (1997) ‘To agree or not to agree: the effects of
value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity and conflict on workgroup outcomes’,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8, pp.287–305.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001) ‘The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44,
pp.238–251.
Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999) ‘Why differences make a difference: a field
study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp.741–763.
Jelinek, M. and Wilson, J. (2005) ‘Macro influences on multicultural teams’. in Shapiro, D.L.
(Ed.): Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives, Elsevier JAI, Amsterdam,
pp.209–231.
Judge, W.Q. and Miller, A. (1991) ‘Antecedents and outcomes of decision speed in different
environmental contexts’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp.449–463
Katz, R. (1982) ‘The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp.81–104.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (2003) The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance
Organization, Harper Business, New York.
Keller, R.T. (2001) ‘Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development:
diversity, communications, job stress and outcomes’, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 44, pp.547–555.
Kellermanns, F.W., Floyd, S.W., Pearson, A.W. and Spencer, B. (2008) ‘The contingent effect of
constructive confrontation on the relationship between shared mental models and decision
quality’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp.119–137.
Kerr, N.L. and Tindale, R.S. (2004) ‘Group performance and decision making’, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 55, pp.623–655.
Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (1998) ‘Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional
dynamics of organizational groups’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp.325–340.
Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and
Integration, Harvard University Press, Boston.
Levine, J.M. and Resnick, L.B. (1993) ‘Social foundations of cognition’, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 44, pp.585–612.
438
J.F. Puck, A-K. Neyer and T. Dennerlein
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D.L. and Weingart, L.R. (2001) ‘Maximizing cross-functional new product
teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective’,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp.779–793.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001) ‘A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, pp.356–376.
McGrath, J. (1984) Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
McGrath, J.E., Arrow, H. and Berdahl, J.L. (2000) ‘The study of groups: past, present and future’,
Personality & Social Psychology Review, Vol. 4, pp.95–105.
Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996) ‘Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21,
pp.402–433.
Neyer, A.K. and Harzing, A.W. (2008) ‘The impact of culture on interactions: five lessons learned
from the European Commission’, European Management Journal, (in press).
Newton, R.R. and Rudestam, K.E. (1999) Your Statistical Consultant. Answers to Your Data
Analysis Questions, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Chatman, J.A. (1996) ‘Culture as social control: corporations, cults and
commitment’, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds): Research in Organizational
Behaviour, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 18, pp.157–200.
Pelled, L.H. (1996) ‘Demographic diversity, conflict and work group outcomes: an intervening
process theory’, Organization Science, Vol. 7, pp.615–631.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999) ‘Exploring the black box: an analysis of work
group diversity, conflict and performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44,
pp.1–28.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003) ‘Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp.879–903.
Rahim, M.A. (1983) ‘A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp.368–376.
Ravasi, D. and Schultz, M. (2006) ‘Responding to organizational identity threats: exploring the role
of organizational culture’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp.433–458.
Shah, P.P. and Jehn, K.A. (1993) ‘Do friends perform better than acquaintances: the interaction of
friendship, conflict and task’, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 2, pp.149–165.
Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000) ‘Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85,
pp.102–111.
Sorensen, J.B. (2002) ‘The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp.70–91.
Tajfel, H. (1982) ‘Social psychology of intergroup relations’, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 33, pp.1–39.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986) ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behavior’, in Worchel,
S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds): Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd ed., Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, pp.33–47.
Teachman, J.D. (1980) ‘Analysis of population diversity: measures of qualitative variation’,
Sociological Methods Research, Vol. 8, pp.341–362.
Thomas, K. (1992) ‘Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations’, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.):
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Consulting Psychologists
Press, Palo Alto, Calif, pp.651–781.
Diversity and conflict in teams
439
Tjosvold, D. and Wong, A.S. (2004) ‘Innovating across cultural boundaries: applying conflict
theory to develop a common approach’, International Negotiation, Vol. 9, pp.291–313.
van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007) ‘Work group diversity’, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 58, pp.515–541.
Weingart, L.R. (1992) ‘Impact of group goals, task component complexity effort and planning on
group performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp.682–693.
Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly III, C.A. (1998) ‘Demography and diversity in organizations:
a review of 40 years of research’, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp.77–140.
Wong, G. and Birnbaum-More, P. (1994) ‘Culture, context and structure: a test on Hong Kong
banks’, Organization Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.99–123.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. and Gibson, C. (2006) ‘Multinational organization context: implications for
team learning and performance’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp.501–518.