As has been argued in the previous chapters, it makes sense to be looking into the creation of a measurement tool of pro-diversity leadership.
By narrowing the research down to NPD teams, a clear scope is set, and a setting is chosen which has already been proven to be beneficial to functionally diverse teams (Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996).
Because of its potential beneficial influence on team performance in functionally diverse teams, Rispens et al. (2012) proposed the measurement tool of Pro-diversity leadership (PDL). This tool was recently created and has only been empirically tested for a few relationships. Therefore, in this study, I will test the measurement tool of PDL so that it can be used in future research. I will test it in three ways: is the PDL tool internally consistent? Does the tool show discriminant validity, so that it is different from other existing measurement tools of leadership behaviors? And does PDL show criterion validity, i.e., does it have predictive value? This chapter will show how the research was done and what the hypotheses are, the next chapter will introduce the sample and measures.
Internal Consistency
To test for internal consistency is relatively straightforward. Internal consistency poses the question: do the measurement’s item sub scores all measure the same construct? This will be done through the measurement of Cronbach’s Alpha. Cronbach’s Alpha (α) is a statistic that is calculated by correlating items pairwise, ranging from negative infinity to 1, although it is mostly between 0 and 1. An α below 0.5 is commonly referred to as unacceptable, between 0.5 and 0.7 is questionable, and above 0.7 acceptable (Hair J. F., 2006). However, Cronbach’s Alphas of over 0.95 are not necessarily desired, as the items might be too closely related to add value to one another, or even be entirely redundant (Steiner, 2003).
Hypothesis 1: All the items of the PDL construct will contribute to the measure such that they are specific enough, and non-redundant.
15
Discriminant Validity
The second test for PDL is Discriminant validity: does it say something different than existing constructs?
This will be done by confirmatory factor analysis, comparing it with the other leadership styles that were tested in the questionnaire: temporal leadership and empowering leadership. Substantial correlation between the different leadership measures means they share predictive power over dependent variables (Hair & Black, 2009). To a large extent, this is not desired, since we want to test a new measure that is supposed to moderate the link between team diversity and performance more than other types of leadership. If the measures share predictive power, this distinction cannot be made.
Hypothesis 2: The PDL measure will be statistically distinct from the other leadership styles that are included in the survey; temporal leadership and empowering leadership.
Criterion Validity
In this test setup, where a single measurement in time is used, we speak of a Concurrent Validity test (Rispens, Homan, & Dijkstra, 2012). That is because we cannot keep track of temporal changes, which would be required to be able to actually predict future results. Instead, we can look for correlations, where we cannot make definite statements about causality. To achieve causal relationships, a second measurement with the same participants will be required in the future. However, based on previous research and existing theories, I expect certain causal relationships to be in place, even though they cannot be proven using the data in this research.
Two research models (figures 4 & 5) will be explained, describing the hypothesized correlations. The mediation model describes Functional Diversity to be positively related to Team Performance, mediated by task conflict and information elaboration. Furthermore, it shows that PDL affects task conflict
(negatively), and information elaboration (positively).
16 Functional
Diversity
Team Performance
Task Conflict Information Elaboration
Pro-diversity Leadership
Figure 4: Mediation model
The moderation model (figure 5) describes functional diversity to influence team performance positively, moderated by PDL and Team Identification, which both positively influence the diversity – performance link. Furthermore, PDL positively affects team identification.
Functional Diversity
Team Performance Pro-diversity
Leadership
Team Identification
Figure 5: Moderation model
As a high level of PDL entails that leaders point out the advantages of having diverse members in a team, and encourages cooperation, I expect to see less conflict of all types, including task conflict. A high level of PDL also contains that leaders make team members eager to use the different views that are
represented in the team, which is why I expect a positive relation between PDL and information elaboration. Due to reduction of conflict, and raised awareness of the value of the different team members, I also expect an increased team identification caused by PDL. Furthermore, Guillaume et al.
(2015) propose in their literature study which leadership behaviors would be beneficial to a work climate
17
that enhances information elaboration and uncertainty reduction. Among these behaviors, they mention
“Advocate for diversity as an informational resource” and “Stimulate information-elaboration”
(Guillaume, Dawson, Otaye-Ebede, Woods, & West, 2015, p. 18).
Altogether, I expect PDL to moderate the relationship between diversity and team performance.
Hypothesis 3a: PDL moderates the positive relationship between functional diversity and team performance such, that when PDL is high, there will be a positive relation between diversity and team performance; whereas when PDL is low, the relationship between functional diversity and team performance is weaker or even negative.
I expect that when team leaders demonstrate high levels of PDL, this will lower intrateam conflict, which includes task conflict. Research suggested that when team members believe in the benefits of diversity, they are less likely to break down in to subgroups (Homan, Greer, Jehn, & Koning, 2010). Furthermore, high levels of PDL indicate that a team leader expresses the value of other viewpoints than your own, which likely makes you more susceptible to the views of others. This could lead to less discussion on unimportant subjects, which is believed to diminish the chances of conflict escalation (Rispens, 2012).
Hypothesis 3b: PDL has a direct, negative relationship with intrateam task conflict.
Previous research suggests that the more a team believes in the benefits of diversity, the more
information elaboration takes place (Van Dick, Van Knippenberg, Hägele, Guillaume, & Brodbeck, 2008).
High levels of PDL encompasses the stimulation of pro-diversity beliefs. This leads to believe that PDL positively influences information elaboration. Furthermore, some of the items that measure PDL (like
“Our team leader tries to make the members of this new product development team eager to use the different views”), are very closely related to sharing information and making use of the shared information. Therefore:
Hypothesis 3c: PDL has a direct, positive relation with information elaboration.
Guillaume et al. (2014) propose in their theoretical review that team leadership plays a crucial role in creating a climate for inclusion, which is defined as a climate in which dissimilar employees feel not only
18
valued, but also respected and empowered (Guillaume et al., 2014). Inclusion, which shows similarity to team identification, is likely affected by a team leader who stimulates the use of different views in a team. This behavior makes sure your opinion is heard and respected, even when there is no other team member from your functional background that initially shares similar views.
Hypothesis 3d: PDL has a direct, positive relation with team identification.
In accordance with Joshi and Roh’s findings (2009), I expect to find a positive relation between functional diversity and team performance. In their meta-analysis, Joshi and Roh find a small but significant effect size, which increases when introducing the contextual factor of industry type. They find that the effect size is larger for high-tech than for manufacturing and service settings. The direct effect of functional diversity was previously found in a meta-analysis by Horwitz and Horwitz (2007). Furthermore it is suggested that non-routine tasks are more suitable to diverse teams than routine tasks (Hambrick, Cho,
& Chen, 1996). New product development is non-routine by its nature, and has more in common with high-tech than with manufacturing and service (routine) settings. Given the beneficial setting for diverse teams (NPD), and given that two meta-analyses have previously confirmed the positive relation between functional diversity and team performance, I state:
Hypothesis 4: Functional diversity will have a positive relation with team performance.
Like Jehn et al. (1997), I expect a positive relation between functional diversity and task conflict.
Relationship and process conflict are commonly linked to demographic, racial or age diversity rather than functional diversity (Jehn et al., 2007; Pelled et al., 1999). Because of no clear connection to the type of diversity that is referred to in this research, relationship and process conflict are left out of the model.
In a meta-analysis it was found that relationship conflict and process conflict are generally negatively related to team performance, whereas task conflict is found to have varying relations with group performance (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). Both Amason (1996) and Jehn (1995) claim a positive effect of task conflict on team performance, the main benefits being an increased understanding of the task at hand (Amason, 1996), a more critical evaluation of each other’s ideas (Jehn, 1995), and the sharing and
19
elaborating of information (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Task conflict was positively related to team performance in a recent research studying the effects of different types of conflict on performance (Chun & Choi, 2014). The authors argue nonetheless that open communication should be treated carefully, since it can benefit (through task conflict) and harm (through relationship conflict and general discomfort) group outcomes at the same time. Furthermore, in a recent meta-analysis task-conflict was also found to be positively related to team performance, together with team affective outcomes (Dechurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2013).
On the other hand, task conflict showed to have a negative relationship with decision making, because of group members holding on to their initial preferences, regardless of whether they are in the interest of the firm or not (De Wit, Jehn, & Scheepers, 2013). In support of the negative view of task conflict, Puck and Pregernig (2014) studied 268 students who were placed in groups in a quasi-experimental laboratory setting. They found that task conflict both has a negative relation with performance and with
cooperation, with cooperation relating positively to performance. This finding contradicts other sources that found a positive relation between task conflict and performance. This might have occurred due to the short-term nature of the task (two tasks of 20 minutes each), where the benefits of task conflict do not yet arise. The interdependent nature of the tasks may have evoked task-conflict, which could hardly be of benefit within 20 minutes.
Todorova, Bear and Weingart (2013) show in their research that task conflict is associated with positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, because it likely to improves information acquisition and positive action emotions. However, that is only the case for mild task conflict: intense task conflict shows
negative relations with positive action emotions and job satisfaction. This suggests an inverted U-shaped relation between task conflict and job satisfaction. This research was an individual level field study among 232 employees of a long-term health organization, in which two questionnaires were taken two months apart. Given this time span, it allows for both positive and negative effects of task conflict to occur, and might therefore be more reliable than the research by Puck and Pregernig (2014) in which groups were created to perform two 20-minute tasks.
20
A similar inverted U-shaped relation was also found between task conflict and team innovation (Xie, Wang, & Luan, 2014). According to their research among 337 college students in 59 teams in a four-month project, this relation was moderated by knowledge integration capacity, which is defined as “the team’s ability to effectively combine, capitalize, and utilize the resource pool” (Xie, Wang, & Luan, 2014, p. 240).
The current state of the art is varying all the way from negative, inverted U-shaped to positive relations between task conflict and (varying types of) team performance. I conclude that a positive, linear relationship between task conflict and team performance is most likely for the teams in this context.
Since no task conflict does not evoke discussion or creating a shared understanding of the problem at hand (Amason, 1996), to some extent task conflict is likely desired. Even though too much task conflict might create friction in a group, leading to less cooperation (Puck & Pregernig, 2014), the numerous sources indicating a linear relation cannot be ignored. Furthermore, due to the innovative nature of the projects our respondents are involved in, critical evaluation of each other’s ideas (Jehn, 1995) and the sharing of and elaborating on information (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004) could prove to be important affecters of team performance, supporting the positive view in the current research setting.
Hypothesis 5a: Functional Diversity is positively related to Team Performance, mediated by Task Conflict.
Functional Diversity will be positively related to Task Conflict, which in turn will be positively related to Team Performance.
Hoever et al. (2012) found information elaboration to be moderating the relationship between diversity and team creativity. This makes sense, because when different perspectives are present in a team, consciously sharing and explaining the information makes sure that different viewpoints are taken into account when creating new ideas. Furthermore, creativity and performance are often linked (Amabile, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993).
The categorization-elaboration model (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004) establishes improved performance by means of elaboration of task-relevant information, especially in relation to creativity and
21
innovation. This view is supported by Kearney and Gebert (2009), who also found a positive relation between elaboration of task-relevant information and team performance. Furthermore, studies show a direct positive effect of task conflict and cognitive task performance (e.g. Pelled et al., 1997), where information sharing or elaboration is mentioned as an explanation for the relation. Therefore, I propose:
Hypothesis 5b: Functional Diversity will have a positive relation with Team Performance, mediated by Information Elaboration. Functional Diversity will be positively related to Information Elaboration, which in turn will be positively related to Team Performance.
In the current research model, team identification is expected to moderate the positive relationship between functional diversity and team performance. It was found in a study of 283 participants that when team identification is high among team members, this positively influences diversity’s effect on performance because the natural tendency to stereotype other team members (from different functional backgrounds than your own) may be transcended when team identification is high (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). On the other hand, when team identification is low, biases and stereotypes are more likely to occur, increasing the tendency to overlook and reject information coming from different perspectives than their own. Hence, performance is likely to decrease (Van der Vegt &
Bunderson, 2005). Similar results were found to by Hu and Liden (2015), who found direct and indirect effects of Team Identification on Team Performance in a study of 67 project teams that were measured three times (to prove causality). Another positive effect of team identification that was found was the reduction of the link between task conflict and relationship conflict (Schaeffner, et al., 2015), of which the latter is found to diminish team performance (Dechurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2013). Hence:
Hypothesis 6: Team identification moderates the positive relationship between functional diversity and team performance such that when team identification is high, the positive relationship between
functional diversity and team performance is stronger. When team identification is low, the relationship between functional diversity and team performance is weaker, possibly resulting in a negative
relationship.
22