The moderating effects of emotion management on group processes in diverse work teams

(1)

T

HE

M

ODERATING

E

FFECTS OF

E

MOTION

M

ANAGEMENT ON

G

ROUP

P

ROCESSES IN

D

IVERSE

W

ORK

T

EAMS

MASTERTHESIS SJOERD J.P.DIJKSTRA 5975662 DATE JUNE 2014 SUPERVISION

WITHIN PROGRAM-GROUP : DR.ASTRID C.HOMAN

EXTERNAL SUPERVISOR : GUILLAUME PIOGER

SECOND EVALUATOR : DRS.SEVAL GÜNDEMIR

LOCATION : BERLIN,GERMANY

(2)

Abstract

Recent research has suggested that the effects and perceptions of work team diversity are affected by the emotion management capacities of the person leading the team. In this thesis I explore to what degree emotion management skills moderate the relation between objective and perceived diversity in work teams, and whether perceived diversity in turn affects group trust and relational conflicts. The two studies show that objective diversity predicts whether people perceive their teams in terms of subgroups, and also the degree to which they predict relationship conflicts. Furthermore, emotion management does positively predict group trust in work teams. The studies do however not provide support for the expected moderating effects of emotion management. Exploratory findings, limitations and future directions are discussed.

(3)

Index

Introduction ... 4

Theoretical framework ... 6

Study 1 ... 11

Method ... 11

Measures and materials ... 12

Results ... 14

Discussion ... 14

Study 2 ... 15

Method ... 15

Measures and materials ... 16

Results ... 16 Discussion ... 26 General discussion ... 27 Theoretical implications ... 27 Practical implications ... 29 Limitations ... 30 Future directions ... 31 Conclusion ... 32 References ... 33 Appendices ... 38

(4)

The Moderating Effects of Emotion Management on Group Processes in Diverse Work Teams

Diversity is present at all levels of society. People with different nationalities, educational backgrounds and cultures will continue to fuse, now as well as in the future. Workforces too will, as a result, become increasingly diverse and dependent on cross-functional teams. Team diversity is on the research agenda more than ever before (Jackson, 1992; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O'Reilly, 1988).

Team diversity can have positive effects in work environments but, unfortunately, negative effects as well (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004). One reason why diverse work teams can outperform less diverse work teams is because they have more creative ideas (Williams & O'Reilly, 1988). On the other hand, however, conflicts may develop easier as people tend to prefer to work with similar rather than dissimilar colleagues, which can counter the positive effects of diversity (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). These contradictory effects make it crucial to understand when and why diversity will lead to positive or negative effects. The direction of the diversity effects is likely to depend on how members perceive the composition of their team (Homan, Greer, Jehn, & Koning, 2010). It is argued that the more team members perceive their team in terms of subgroups, the more likely the team will experience conflicts, distrust, and deteriorated relationships (Van Dick, Van Knippenberg, Hägele, Guillaume, & Brodbeck, 2008).

Researchers have suggested that leaders might play an important role in managing team diversity (Homan & Jehn, 2010) and that successful management of team diversity may require emotional intelligence (Homan, Van Kleef, Côté, & Bogo, 2013). The emotional intelligence of a leader is relevant in the management of group processes. It describes the degree to which the team leader has the right skills to act effectively by understanding and further undertaking the appropriate action to moderate negative, and enhance positive,

(5)

emotions (MacCann & Roberts, 2008; Joseph & Newman, 2010). Emotional intelligent leaders tend to focus on healing relationships, increasing trust, and managing frictions (e.g., Bass, 1990; Burke et al., 2006; Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy, & Stogdill, 1974). It may be expected, therefore, that emotional intelligent leaders can help improve group processes within diverse work teams. The current research effort focuses specifically on the perception of subgroups, team trust and relationship conflicts within diverse work teams, and the role of the leaders‟ emotion management skills.

The research contributes to previous findings by identifying the role of the leaders‟ emotion management capacities in the relation between diversity, diversity perceptions, team trust and relationship conflicts. It provides more insight into what degree the emotion

management capacities of a leader give direction to diversity perceptions and may help

instigate positive intra-group processes and outcomes in diverse teams. More understanding in how leaders can improve the functioning and results of diverse work teams helps

organizations profit from the positive effects that arise with team diversity. Team leaders in organizations could, for example, be trained in their emotion management capacities and skills. In the selection of new leaders, emotional intelligence could be measured as a selection criterion. Two studies are undertaken to test the hypotheses on diverse group functioning and emotion management.

The central question I want answer is to what degree the emotion management capacities of a leader weaken or strengthen the relationship between objective diversity and subjective diversity (defined here as the individual perception of the whole group in terms of subgroups) and the resulting intra-team processes (i.e., trust and relationship conflicts). I propose and argue that leaders with higher rather than lower emotion management capacities will make it less likely that sub-grouping occurs in diverse work teams. This will in turn increase team trust and decrease relational conflicts (see Figure 1).

(6)

Figure 1. Theoretical model

Theoretical framework

A more thorough understanding of the constructs of interest is needed to predict any possible relations between them. Diversity has been defined as something that can occur on any possible dimension that leads people to perceive someone else to be different (e.g., Williams & O‟Reilly, 1998). Two theories giving directions to these dimensions make a distinction between social category diversity and informational/functional diversity.

Social Category Diversity is characterized by detectable attributes such as nationality, sex, age, and ethnicity. Informational/Functional Diversity differences can be described by less visible, underlying attributes that are more job-related, such as organizational function, tenure in organization, and educational background (Jackson, 1992; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Milliken & Martins, 1996). This research focused on nationality and

professional tenure as both a surface and a more deep level type of diversity. Nationality diversity, the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization, and professional tenure diversity, the time one‟s employed by a company and or team, are

common operationalizations of work group diversity (Harrison & Klein, 2007). As was noted earlier, diversity can have both positive as well as negative effects within work groups, and on the group outcomes (Milliken & Martins, 1990).

Leaders‟ emotion management skills Objective diversity Nationality Professional tenure Diversity perception Subgrouping Group processes Team trust Relationship conflicts

(7)

Diversity could, on the positive side, imply more variety in task-relevant knowledge, skills and perspectives, and it also appears that more diverse teams exhibit a greater exchange of more accurate information (Jehn et al., 1999). Furthermore, diversity can instigate more external communication, more innovation, more creative ideas, more strategic change, and in the end even better performance (Jehn et al., 1999; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). Unfortunately, on the negative side, diversity could lead to more conflict, more miscommunication and more feelings of uncertainty, because people tend to prefer to work with similar rather than

dissimilar others (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Milliken & Martin, 1996; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004; Williams & O'Reilly, 1998).

An important reason to explain for these negative negative effects is due to

subgrouping. Diversity may cause people to perceive and distinguish subgroups within the

work group (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Group members could start categorizing themselves and others into group, and so forth distinguishing between similar in-group members and dissimilar out-group members (Van Knippenberg et al., 2007). According to social identify theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) people show positive behaviors, such as

solidarity, to in-group members and negative discriminating behaviors to out-group members because of social identity processes. The goal of these behaviors is to enhance self-esteem (Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Research has shown that when individuals categorize their diverse team into subgroups this can result in, for example, conflict and low trust (Earley &

Mosakowski, 2000; Hewstone, Rubin, Willis, 2002; Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003).

Subgroups, therefore, are considered to be a negative occurrence within diverse work groups. I argue that emotional intelligent leadership make these subgroup formations and perceptions less likely to occur, and that this leadership helps obtain the potential benefits and avoid the potential disadvantages of a diverse work group. Van Knippenberg and his

(8)

categorization-elaboration model. They proposed that it is important to consider moderators in order to

predict whether diversity has positive or negative effects. The emotion management capacities of a leader, as was noted earlier, have been proposed a moderator in regulating group

processes in this relation (Homan et al., 2010; Homan et al., 2013). The emotion management capacities of somebody are considered a part of his or her emotional intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Emotional intelligence, the broader term, refers to the mental process involved in the identification, use, understanding and managing of your own and others' emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios, 2001; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Mayer and Salovey‟s (1997) ability model is commonly accepted for

characterizing emotional intelligence (MacCann, 2010). The four „branches‟ in this model represent the perception, facilitation, understanding and management of emotions. In this model information processing abilities in the lower branches underlie the more strategic and complex abilities in the higher branches. That starts with the accurate perception and

expression of emotions. Then facilitation, the purposeful generation of emotions to aid problem solving. Thereafter understanding the relationships between emotions, situations, and time courses. And finally management, the regulation of one‟s own and others‟ emotions (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios, 2001). According to this model emotional intelligence is a new intelligence that contributes to (g), general intelligence (MacCann, 2010). Rather than IQ, which is important for the performance on individual cognitive tasks, emotional intelligence seems to be important for achievements in social situations (Jordan & Troth, 2004). This implies, simplified, that IQ would describe a persons‟ ability to understand information and emotional intelligence the ability to understand feelings or emotion. The emotional management capacities of a leader influence the way a team leader approaches conflicts and emotions (Jordan et al., 2004). I thus argue that objective diversity and the leaders‟ emotion management capacities will interact in predicting perceptions of subgroups

(9)

in such a way that the positive relationship between objective diversity and perceptions of subgroups will be weakened when the leader has higher rather than lower emotion

management skills (H1).

Team leaders also have a significant influence on team processes (Zaccaro &

Klimoski, 2002) and I expect that emotionally intelligent leaders will improve the team trust and limit the relationship conflicts that could occur within diverse teams via their impact on the objective diversity - perceived subgroups relationship.

Group trust is defined as a belief about the dependability of the other and the extent to

which the other cares about the group‟s interests (Dirks, 1999). Group trust is important in workplace interactions because individuals can benefit by relying on others (Kim, Cooper, Dirks, & Ferrin, 2013). In diverse work teams trust among members can be harmed because people are more likely to trust people who are similar rather than dissimilar to them (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Teams that have more team trust are thus likely to experience more positive intra-team processes. Leaders who have strong emotion management skills are therefore likely to weaken this relationship since they are focused on reducing negative emotions and building relationships within the team (Burke et al., 2006). I propose that objective diversity and the leaders‟ emotion management capacities will interact in predicting team trust in such a way that the negative relationship between objective diversity and group trust will be weakened when the leader has higher emotion management skills (H2a).

Relational conflicts between group members are disagreements about personal issues

and can lead to a reduction of the team- and organizational outcomes (Dijkstra, van

Dierendonck, & Evers, 2005). An example is lower job satisfaction and lower performance (Dijkstra et al., 2005). It has been shown that in more diverse groups relationship conflicts arise more easily then is less diverse groups because of miscommunications between different subgroups (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). I propose that emotion management will reduce this

(10)

effect of group diversity on relationship conflicts. Leaders who have strong emotion

management skills reduce unnecessary tension among members (George, 2000). Therefore, specifically, objective diversity and the leaders‟ emotion management capacities will interact in predicting relationship conflicts in such a way that the positive relationship between objective diversity and relationship conflicts will be weakened when the leader has higher emotion management skills (H2b).

Previous research suggested that when individuals categorize and perceive their team in terms of subgroups this may result in conflict and low trust (also labeled intergroup bias; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003). More recent work shows that the factors that make it less likely that subgrouping occurs are on the other hand likely to improve the relationship between group diversity and negative group processes such as conflict and distrust (Homan et al., 2008). Therefore, I propose that the earlier proposed interaction between the emotion management capacities of a leader and the teams‟ diversity on team trust and relationship conflicts will be mediated by the perception of subgroups (H3).

These hypotheses are tested with two studies. The first field study is conducted in a department of a large international orientated with real-life homogeneous and heterogeneous teams and their team leaders. The second experimental study is conducted using scenarios to manipulate the diversity for team leaders.

(11)

Study 1 Method

Participants. The first study focused on real teams and their leaders in a department

from a large international orientated company in Berlin. These teams were selected for their expected variety in diversity on the dimensions of interest. The total sample consisted of 107 employees (79 female and 28 male; 8 team leaders and 99 team members). The 8 teams differed in sizes ranging from 12 to 25 members. 94 of the participants were German (81.9%). The nationality of the other 18.1% differed between American, Belgian, Chinese, French, Italian, Cameroon, Dutch, Spanish and Hungarian. Members have been part of their team for an average of 2.68 years (SD = 1.82). All data was collected anonymously, but in order to connect leaders with their teams, a coding system was used to connect the data. However, all data was promised to be discussed with leaders and the company only on an aggregate level so that individual responses could not be tracked back to individual employees. The company agreed on participation in return for an informative presentation on emotion management in a team leader meeting at the discussed department.

Procedure. Team composition and individual demographic data was collected from

organizational charts and the local employee databank from the company to determine the objective team diversity of all teams. Further individual data was collected with an online questionnaire. Participants were able to fill out the questionnaire through a unique link that was sent directly to them via email (it took approximately 5-10 minutes), so that team members and leaders could be linked to the previously collected data. Team leaders were asked to fill out an additional 35 minutes questionnaire. For team members the constructs „perceived subgrouping,‟ „team trust‟ and „relationship conflict‟ were measured, and for team leaders their emotion management capacities were measured too. Additional questions

(12)

measured „task interdependence,‟ „cohesion,‟ „task conflict‟ and „communication‟ for exploratory purposes.

After a brief introduction (Appendix A+B) participants were asked permission to use their data (Appendix C, declaration of approval). Team members and team leaders hereafter started a 34 item question list (Appendix D) where subgrouping (6 items), team trust (4 items) and relationship conflict (5 items), as control task interdependence (2 items) and explorative task conflicts (5 items), open team communication (3 items) and cohesion (3 items) were measured with a scale. Team leaders also completed a 30 item question list to measure their emotional intelligence (Appendix E). Hereafter all participants answered a few additional questions (Appendix F) and finally they were be thanked for their participation (Appendix G).

Measures and materials

Objective diversity. Team composition and individual demographic data was

collected from organizational charts and the local employee databank to determine the objective team diversity of all teams. Diversity scores were hereafter calculated for all teams separately for their nationality diversity as a categorical variable, using Blau‟s index

(Simpson, 1949; as cited in Harrison & Klein, 2007) and their professional tenure diversity score was measured as a continues variable, using the coefficient of variation (Simpson, 1949). Explorative information on the gender composition of the team members was collected to control for possible effects.

Emotional Intelligence. For the measurement of the emotion management capacities

of a leader, the Situational Test of Emotion Management ([STEM], MacCann & Roberts, 2008) was used. The short version of the STEM (30 items) assesses whether participants are skilled enough to apply the most effective strategy for the regulation of emotional situations, choosing between 4 multiple-choice answers (e.g., “Lee‟s workmate fails to deliver an

(13)

would be the most effective for Lee?”, Appendix G). The STEM is hardly related to cognitive abilities and personality. The test has a good discriminant validity (MacCann, 2010). Criterion validity is supported by correlations with life satisfaction and school grades (MacCann & Roberts, 2008). The STEM has an acceptable internal reliability (α= 0.73), as it deals with a great variety of situations and settings (Austin, 2010).

Group perception and processes. General subgroup perception was measured with

six items (Jehn, Greer, Levine & Szulanski, 2008) assessing the degree to which people perceived subgroups in their team (c; e.g., “My team splits into subgroups.”). Intragroup trust is measured with four items (Simons & Peterson, 2000) assessing the degree to which people feel trust for other team member (α = 0.89; e.g., “I am sure everyone in my team keeps his word.”). Relationship conflicts was measured with five items (Jehn, Greer, Levine & Szulanski, 2008) assessing the degree to which people have conflicts with on another (α = 0.75; e.g., “How much are personality clashes evident in this team?”). All items were measured on a 1–7 Likert scale.

Control variables. Task interdependence was measured as control variable to see

whether team members are actually working together as teams (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2005) (α = 0.83; e.g., “I have to work closely with my team members to do my work

properly.”). All items were measured on a 1–7 Likert scale. Further individual demographics such as age, gender, educational level, team size and language knowledge were also collected as potential control variables.

Explorative variables. Task conflicts was measured explorative with five items (Jehn,

Greer, Levine & Szulanski, 2008) assessing the degree to people have task related conflicts with on another (α = 0.73; e.g.; “How much disagreement is there among members of your team over work-related opinions?”). Open team communication was measured explorative with three items (Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003) assessing the degree to team members

(14)

communicate with one another (α = 0.89; e.g., “There is open communication in this team.”).

Cohesion was measured explorative with three items (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985)

assessing the degree to which people experience team cohesion (α = 0.75; e.g., “The team is a unity.”). All items were measured on a 1–7 Likert scale.

Results

Due to a very low response rate I was, unfortunately, not able to collect enough data to do the intended statistical analyses. Three of the eight team leaders filled out the complete emotion management questionnaire and the response rate from their team members was under 40% in all three cases. With a too small n it was impossible to make well-founded statements about the results.

Discussion

Unfortunately, I had to conclude that the gathered data in Study 1 was not sufficient to analyze my predictions. With very small n it was not possible to provide well-founded

statements concerning the results. The first and main reason for the low response rate was due to the fact that the questionnaire was not obligatory. Employees were free to decide whether they wanted to participate. Second, the language barrier between different nationalities had made it more difficult for some participants to complete the entire questionnaire; some German speaking participants reported to have trouble understanding the English statements and especially the nuanced differences between them. And last, the communication from the team leaders to their team members about the intention of the study were not done properly and should have been structured better. Luckily, the data collected in Study 2 proved to be of more value.

(15)

Study 2 Method

Sample and design. A total of 63 participants (16 women and 47 men) from my own

social circle participated in the experiment. The participants had a mean age of 25.71 years (SD = 6.87). The participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions (low diversity [N = 20], 50-50 diversity [N = 23], and high diversity [N = 20]). 47 of the participants were Dutch (74.6%). The nationality of the other 25.4% differed between American, Spanish, Australian, Belgian, Bulgarian, French, German, Irish and Syrian. Two participants won a $50 Amazon voucher as reward for their participation.

Procedure. This study was conducted with the use of an online questionnaire. The

questionnaire consisted of a scenario with three different conditions (high diversity vs. 50-50 diversity vs. low diversity) differing in team diversity based on nationality combined with the same questionnaires used in the first study. The end of the questionnaire consisted of

manipulation checks and demographic questions, which could be used as control variables. Participants were able to reach the questionnaire via a link on internet or receive an email invitation to participate. After a brief introduction (Appendix H) participants were asked permission to use their data (Appendix C, declaration of approval). Participants hereafter completed a 30 item question list to measure their emotional management capacities (Appendix E). Participants were asked how to act most effectively to emotionally charged situations. After this participants were randomly assigned to one of three diversity conditions (homogeneous, 50-50 diversity, heterogeneous). They were asked to empathize with the role as leader of a team (see Appendix I). They then started the 34 item question list (Appendix F) that was also used in Study 1. Finally participants answered the manipulation check

(Appendix J) and demographic questions (Appendix K), and they were thanked for their participation (Appendix G).

(16)

Measures and materials

Manipulation Check. With two manipulation checks (Appendix J) was verified

whether the manipulation in Study 2 was successful. The first manipulation check asked participants to rate six statements on the nationality diversity within their team (e.g.; “to what extent does the team you lead consists of people with different nationalities?”). These

statements can be answered on a 1–5 Likert scale. In addition, participants were asked for the team composition of the teams that they are leading (e.g.; If I had to describe the nationalities and the time my team members have been employed by the company, this would be like:"). With the possible answers, the three condition groups 'homogeneous', '50-50 diversity' or 'heterogeneous' will be checked.

Further constructs. General subgroup perception (Jehn et al., 2008; α= 0.90),

emotional intelligence (MacCann et al., 2008; α= 0.91), intragroup trust (Simons et al., 2000; α= 0.89), relationship conflicts (Jehn et al., 2008; α= 0.75), task interdependence (Van der Vegt et al., 2005; α= 0.83), task conflicts (Jehn et al., 2008; α= 0.73), open team

communication (Gibson et al., 2003; α= 0.89) and cohesion (Carron et al., 1985; α= 0.75) were measured with the same measures and materials that were used in the first study.

Control variables. As the demographic questions were not related to any of the

outcome measures (i.e., intragroup trust, relationship conflicts, and subgroup perceptions), the analyses were done without these control variables.

Results

The means, standard deviations, range, and correlations of the variables of interest are given in Table 1. Categorical variables with more than two categories, this case the diversity variable, need to be dummy-coded before that can be analyzed and entered into a regression. Therefore, I dummy-coded the diversity variable so that 1 represented the group of interest and 0 the other two conditions, for all three conditions.

(17)

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the variables of interest in Study 2

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

1. Low diversity dummy 0.32 0.47

2. 50-50 diversity dummy 0.37 0.49 -.52

3. High diversity dummy 0.32 0.47 -.47 -.52

4. EM: rating of experts 4.56 0.31 .01 .13 -.15

5. EM: proportion of experts 0.51 0.12 .05 .20 -.25 .75

6. General subgroup perception 4.19 0.95 -.22 .15 .06 -.11 -.06

7. Relationship conflicts 3.13 1.02 -.18 .21 -.03 -.17 -.10 .14

8. Intragroup trust 5.15 1.10 .13 -.04 -.09 .26 .16 -.17 -.49

9. Task interdependence 5.02 1.29 .00 -.19 .19 .10 .09 .00 -.17 .20

10. Task conflicts 3.79 0.99 -.10 -.09 .19 -.13 -.15 .10 .45 -.24 .17

11. Open team communication 5.62 1.15 .10 -.18 .09 .13 .02 -.13 -.53 .64 .14 -.37

12. Cohesion 5.38 0.96 .19 -.11 -.08 .13 .12 -.16 -.49 .57 .11 -.27 .71

13. Gender 0.75 0.44 .01 -.09 .08 .04 -.02 -.09 -.18 .07 -.01 .10 .08 .05

14. Age 0.49 0.50 -.06 .11 -.06 -.09 .10 .04 .17 -.30 -.06 .01 -.28 -.22 .14

15. Nationality Europe 0.10 0.30 -.11 .09 .01 .02 .15 -.32 .01 -.11 -.03 .09 .05 .04 .19 .11

16. Nationality Dutch 0.25 0.44 .23 -.14 -.08 -.26 -.09 -.39 .02 .00 .02 .01 .00 .07 .09 .16 .56

(18)

This resulted in three different dummies; low diversity dummy, 50-50 diversity dummy and high diversity dummy. To examine the moderating role of the emotion management capacities between the different variables (objective diversity > subgroup perception; objective diversity > group trust; objective diversity > relationship conflicts) I centered the mean scores on the STEM questionnaire and computed cross-products with the three different dummies.

Manipulation check. First, I analyzed the Likert manipulation check questions about

the composition of the imaginary team they were leading. ANOVA‟s (Table 2) showed that participants in the low diversity condition (M = 3.75, SD = 1.52) described their team more as having one kind of nationality then those in the 50-50 diversity condition (M = 1.78, SD = 1.09) and then those in the high diversity condition (M = 1.50, SD = 0.95; F(2, 60) = 21.11, p < .001). Furthermore, participants in the 50-50 diversity condition (M = 3.96, SD = 1.26) described their team more as having two different types of nationalities then those in the low diversity condition (M = 2.35, SD = 1.39) and then those the high diversity condition (M = 2.20, SD = 1.52; F(2, 60) = 12.37, p < .001). Finally, participants in the high diversity condition (M = 4.45, SD = 0.69) described their team more as having have a wide variety of nationalities then those in the low diversity condition (M = 2.70, SD = 1.59) and then those in the 50-50 diversity condition (M = 2.61, SD = 1.31; F(2, 60) = 14.03, p < .001).

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the questions on the first manipulation check

Manipulation check low diversity Manipulation check 50-50 diversity Manipulation check high diversity Low diversity _3.75 a (1.52) 2.35b (1.39) 2.70 b (1.59) 50-50 diversity _1.78 b (1.09) 3.96 a (1.26) 2.61 b (1.31) High diversity _1.50 b (0.95) 2.20 b (1.24) 4.45a (0.69)

(19)

Table 3. Amount of successful and unsuccessful responses on the second manipulation check Manipulation check successful Manipulation check unsuccessful Low diversity 11 9 50-50 diversity 18 5 High diversity 16 4 Total 45 18

Second, I examined the answers on the forced-choice manipulation check. In total, 18 participants incorrectly indicated the composition of their team. Cross table analyses (Table 3) showed that the groups of participants from the different conditions differed significant from

the other conditions in answering the question correctly (low diversity condition;



2(2, N =

62) = 15.82, p < .001; 50-50 diversity condition;



2(2, N = 62) = 22.63, p < .001; high

diversity condition



2(2, N = 62) = 21.23, p < .001. Despite the number of incorrect answers

in the condition, I decided -- following the results from the previously reported Likert-scale manipulation checks -- to consider all data from every participant for further analyzes. This choice was made because the number of participants would otherwise decrease too much. With a too small n it would be impossible to make well-founded statements about the results. I will come back to this in the discussion section.

General subgroup perception. I predicted that the positive relationship between

objective diversity and perceptions of subgroups would be weakened when the leader has higher rather than lower emotion management skills. Regression (Table 5) did not show a significant interaction effect of either one of the three dummies and the emotion management capacities of the leader. There was, however, a weak main effect of the low diversity dummy (β = -0.25, t = -1.69, p = 0.09) and the 50-50 diversity dummy (β = 0.25, t = 1.69, p = 0.09) on the perception of subgroups. Participants leading an imaginary team with a low diversity

(20)

condition. Participants leading an imaginary team with 50-50 diversity perceived more subgroups compared to participants in the low diversity and high diversity conditions. Comparing the high diversity condition with the low and 50-50 diversity condition revealed neither main effect nor an interaction with emotion management.

Figure 1. Theoretical model

Table 4. Linear regression analyses pertaining to group trust

Intragroup trust Step 1

Low diversity dummy .13

High diversity dummy .01

Emotion management score .26 *

Contribution to R² .08

Step 2

Emotion management score .41

Low diversity dummy x emotion management score -.08

High diversity dummy x emotion management score -.14

Contribution to R² (ΔR²) .00

Overall R² .09

Notes: n = 62; Standardized coefficients (β) are reported. Low diversity dummy: 0 = low

diversity; 1 = high diversity and 50-50 diversity. High diversity dummy: 0 = high diversity; 1 = low diversity and 50-50 diversity; † p < .1; * p < .05.Again, re-running the analysis including the 50-50 diversity dummy revealed no additional effects.

Leaders‟ emotion management skills Objective diversity Nationality Professional tenure Diversity perception Subgrouping Group processes Team trust Relationship conflicts

(21)

Table 5. Linear regression analyses pertaining to the perception of subgroups

Perception of subgroups

Step 1

Low diversity dummy -.25 †

High diversity dummy -.08

Emotion management score -.12

Step 2

Low diversity dummy x emotion management score .12

High diversity dummy x emotion management score .04

Contribution to R² (ΔR²) .01 Overall R² .07 Perception of subgroups Step 1 50-50 diversity dummy .25 †

Step 2

50-50 diversity dummy .26 †

50-50 diversity dummy x emotion management score -.11

Overall R² .07

Notes: n = 62; Standardized coefficients (β) are reported. Low diversity dummy: 1 =

low diversity; 0 = high diversity and 50-50 diversity. High diversity dummy: 1 = high diversity; 0 = low diversity and 50-50 diversity; † p < .10.

Including the dummy comparing the high with the low and 50-50 diversity condition did not revealed no additional effects.

(22)

Intragroup trust and relationship conflicts. I also predicted that the objective

diversity of the team and the leaders‟ emotion management skills would interact in predicting both team trust and relationship conflicts. Team trust would be affected in such a way that the negative relationship between the objective diversity and team trust will be weakened when the leader has higher emotion management skills. Relationship conflicts, on the other hand, would be affected in such a way that the positive relationship between objective diversity and relationship conflicts will be weakened when the leader has higher emotion management skills. Unfortunately, this prediction was not confirmed as leader emotion management does not interact with team diversity to predict intragroup trust and relationship conflicts.

The correlation matrix (Table 1) shows a strong positive relation between emotion management capacities and the amount of intragroup trust, r(62) = .26, p < .01. Participant with higher rather than lower emotion management capacities predicted significant more intragroup trust in the imaginary teams they were leading. Regarding relationship conflicts (Table 6) there was a trend for the main effect of the low diversity dummy (β = -.28, t = -1.97,

p = 0.054) and the 50-50 diversity dummy (β = .29, t = 1.97, p = 0.054). Participants leading

an imaginary team with low diversity predicted less relational conflicts compared to

participants in the 50-50 and high diversity condition. Participants leading an imaginary team with 50-50 diversity predicted more relational conflicts compared to participants in the low diversity and high diversity conditions. Again, comparing the high diversity with the low and 50-50 diversity condition did not reveal additional effects. Unfortunately, the interaction between either one of the two dummies and emotion management capacities did not significantly predict intragroup trust (R² = 8.9%; F(3,57) = 1.96, p = 0.87) and relationship conflicts (R² = 10.4%; F(3,57) = 2.41, p = 0.61). Because there was no significant interaction between objective diversity and emotion management on perceived subgroups, intragroup trust and relation conflicts the model is not analyzed further.

(23)

Table 6. Linear regression analyses pertaining to relationship conflicts

Relationship conflicts

Step 1

Step 2

Contribution to R² (ΔR²) .02 Overall R² .11 Relationship conflicts Step 1 50-50 diversity dummy .28 †

Step 2

50-50 diversity dummy .29 †

50-50 diversity dummy x emotion management score -.12

Overall R² .11

Notes: n = 62; Standardized coefficients (β) are reported. Low diversity dummy: 0 = low diversity; 1 = high diversity and 50-50 diversity. High diversity dummy: 0 = high

diversity; 1 = low diversity and 50-50 diversity; † p < .1; * p < .05.

(24)

Explorative analyses. Additional analyses were done to determine possible effects on task interdependence, task conflicts, open team communication and cohesion. Participants leading the imaginary team with a high diversity seem to predict there is more task

interdependence (β = 0.30, t = 2.07, p = 0.043). Because participants' age was significantly correlated with communication, trust, and cohesion, this variable was included as a control variable. Regression analyses (Table 8) show positive effects for age on intragroup trust (β = -0.29, t = -2.29, p = 0.026) and open team communication (β = --0.29, t = -2.28, p = 0.027). The older half of the participants predicted less group trust and less communication in teams than the younger half of the participants. No effects were found for both task conflict and cohesion and therefore not reported. Again, unfortunately, there was no evidence for the moderating role of leader emotion management.

Table 7. Explorative linear regression analyses pertaining to task interdependence

Task interdependence

Step 1

High diversity dummy .27 †

Step 2

High diversity dummy .30 *

Low diversity dummy x emotion management score -.27

Overall R² .10

diversity; 1 = high diversity and 50-50 diversity. High diversity dummy: 1 = high diversity; 0 = low diversity and 50-50 diversity; † p < .1; * p < .05.

(25)

Table 8. Explorative linear regression analyses pertaining to trust and communication

Intragroup trust

Step 1

Age -.30 *

Contribution to R² .11 †

Step 2

Age -.29 *

Overall R² .14

Open team communication Step 1

Age -.27 *

Step 2

Age -.29 *

Overall R² .15

diversity; 1 = high diversity and 50-50 diversity. High diversity dummy: 1 = high diversity; 0 = low diversity and 50-50 diversity; † p < .1; * p < .05.

(26)

Discussion

The data obtained for Study 2 were more suitable to test the predictions I proposed than the data of Study 1. Although the data do not support an interaction between team diversity and leader emotion management, the data do show that the way people perceive teams in terms of subgroups and their predictions regarding relational conflicts within those teams are influenced by the composition of the team at hand.

The perception of subgroups was directly influenced by the diversity of the team in terms individual ethnic differences. People predicted and perceived less subgroups when they lead a team with low diversity compared to people leading teams with a higher diversity, and people predicted more subgroups when they lead a team with 50-50 diversity compared to people leading teams with either less or more diversity. Relational conflicts were also affected by the diversity of the team. People predicted less conflict when they lead teams with low diversity compared to people leading teams with a higher diversity, and people predicted more conflict when they lead teams with a 50-50 diversity compared to people leading teams with either less or more diversity.

Furthermore, the predictions regarding team trust is strongly positively related to the emotion management capacities of the person leading that team. People with higher emotion management capacities expected more intragroup trust then people that are less skilled in emotion managing.

Explorative analyses showed that leaders predicted more task interdependence in teams with high diversity than in teams with less diversity. Additionally, older team leaders expected that work teams have less group trust and less open group communication than did younger team leaders. No additional effects were found for task conflict and cohesion.

(27)

General discussion

Emotion management skills of team leaders are relevant to establish healthy group processes in teams with a diverse composition. The work that was done in the theoretical framework of this thesis is based on this assumption. The present research focused on the perception of subgroups within diverse work teams and their relation with experienced intragroup trust, relational conflicts, and the overall moderating role of emotion management. It was proposed that the emotion management capacities of a leader would specifically moderate relations between objective work team diversity, subgroup perceptions, relational conflicts and group trust. All these relations would be moderated in the direction that is desired to establish the healthy and stable group processes that are desired. The data that was collected in this research does unfortunately not support this interactive relation with emotion management and the other constructs of interest. However, a number of additional findings came forward. These findings and the new questions this research evokes are explored in this section. Practical implications and further research directions for both companies and team management, as well as the psychological research in the field of work- and organization are outlined.

Theoretical implications

This field experimental study was conducted to unravel the relationship between a work teams‟ objective- and more subjective diversity and the related group processes. In line with expectations, there seemed to be the trend that objective differences between team members affected the way people perceived their fellow team members in terms of subgroup. As was noted earlier, people perceived less subgroups when they were leading work teams with a low diversity as compared to participants that were leading a team with more diversity, and people perceived more subgroup when they lead a team with a 50-50 diversity compared to teams with low and high diversity. Predicted relationship conflicts were also affected by the

(28)

diversity of the team. Whereas teams with low diversity had less relationship conflicts compared to teams with more diversity, teams with a 50-50 diversity had more relationship conflicts compared to teams with low and high diversity. The composition of the team did however not affect the group trust and this was not due to the moderating role of the emotional management capacities of the person leading that team.

The subgroup perceptions were not related to any occurring group processes,

interestingly enough. This is striking and could indicate another possible moderator that may

not have been measured, or a specific feature of the subjects that was not thought of.It

seemed that these leaders‟ skills are not as important in regulating team trust and relational conflicts within teams with a diverse composition as was expected. The role of emotion management already has been proven to be significant for various group settings and outcomes in previous research. The emotion management capacities of a leader have been proposed a moderator in regulating group processes in this relation (Homan et al., 2010; Homan et al., 2013). A possible explanation for the lack of findings in this study may also be found in the low response rate (i.e., low power) in Study 1 and the still relatively low amount of participants and the mistakes in the manipulation checks in Study 2. This issue will be addressed in greater detail in the limitations section.

The emotion management capacities were directly related to the intragroup trust that was predicted to exist within the teams. Leaders with higher emotion management capacities predicted there would be more trust within their teams than leaders with less emotion

management capacities. All leaders predicted more task interdependence in teams with higher diversity rather than lower diversity. A reason for this differentiation might be in the fact that members with a higher diversity in backgrounds, experiences and knowledge are more dependent on each other when they work together and share information than do team with less diversity. In addition, younger leaders expected that their teams would have more group

(29)

trust and more open group communication than did older team leaders. Leader expectations have been proven to significantly influence subordinate performance in organizations (Eden, 1992). For example team members‟ self-efficacy, actual performance, attitudes and motivation are all enhanced by the leaders‟ expectations when these are positive. This suggests that, in order to achieve higher intragroup trust and open team communication, the leaders‟ emotion management capacities and age play a significant role. The findings in this research point out that younger and more emotion management skilled leaders would affect these group

processes better, compared to older and less emotion management skilled leaders. Older people seem to report more cynicism than younger people (Barefoot et al, 1993) and this could explain for these effects.

Practical implications

It is important for organizations to optimize group processes within their work teams to assure a stable productivity. The decrease of relationship conflicts and increase of group trust that can occur within work teams with high diversity adds to this purpose. However the regulation of these specific group processes in work teams with high diversity might not be as much affected by the emotion management capacities of leaders as was expected. The results is this study, however, do not present conclusive evidence for these propositions, and more research is needed.

When looking at teams in general, this work does give directions in executing management directions to achieve the same goal. Leaders with more emotion management capacities expect more group trust in the teams they lead then leaders with less capacities in this field. It seems plausible these expectations will affect the actual team trust, due to a chameleon effect (Eden, 1992) or self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton, 1948). This means that when an expectation directly or indirectly causes itself to become true due to positive

(30)

feedback between belief and behavior. The same positive expectations are found in younger leaders compared to older for both group trust and team communication.

Organizations can therefore use this information to actively improve team processes and interaction. First, when recruiting and selecting new managers and team leaders, attention could be directed towards their emotion management skills. This would be a relatively easy and realistic way to assess new employees as most assessments often include a general intelligence (IQ) test. Second, team leaders can be trained to detect, analyze and react on others‟ emotions to improve the skills they already possess. These two methods would boost expectations towards team trust and consequently enlarge the actual intragroup trust in the organizational teams. This research effort suggests recruiting and selecting younger team leaders would instigate more group trust and open team communication as well. The selection of younger team leaders on the mentioned criteria may be considered when more team trust and communication is essential.

Limitations

Methodological limitations in this study may have affected the outcomes. The response rate in the first study was so low that the collected data could not be considered for analyses in this research question. The management of the company hesitated to approve the employee questionnaire for reasons of security and privacy policies that are respected in the company. The obstacles were removed in good deliberation and adjustment of the procedure, but the desired response on the distributed questionnaire was not achieved. As was noted earlier, participants reported they had trouble understanding the statements; the questionnaire was not obligatory; the language barrier between different nationalities made it difficult for some participants to complete the entire English questionnaire; and the communication of the team leaders to their team members about the intention of the study was not done properly and should have been structured better. The team leaders‟ questionnaire with 30 STEM

(31)

(MacCann & Roberts , 2008) items might have been too time consuming to add to their workload.

The data from the second study was collected using an experimental setup in which participants were confronted with an imaginary situation in which they were leading fake teams and anticipated group interaction. External validity is therefore not guaranteed. If Study 1 had provided enough data, this experimental data could have been compared to field data. This would have enabled linking results and defining the external validity of the second study. Finally, due to a still relatively small amount of participants it was not possible to eliminate any that incorrectly responded to the manipulation checks. The first check supported the manipulation but the second forced-choice check singled out 18 participants who did not seem to correctly remember the composition of the imaginary team they were leading. Nationality differences between themselves as leader and the people they were leading could explain why they tended to explain their team as more diverse than was intended when designing this study. Another limitation in both studies is that the collected data depended on self-reports which could lead to common-method bias.

Future directions

It is obvious that the capacities of team leaders affect the internal as well the external quality of teams in any productive environment. The idea however that the emotion

management skills of team leaders are particularly important to improve group trust and decrease relational conflicts cannot be supported with these data. Research in the field of the increasingly diverse workforce remains important. More understanding of how groups function, especially when members differ from one another, is needed to harvest the positive outcomes diversity has to offer.

We have looked at the emotion management skills. Other aspects in management can presumably be more influential in the intragroup processes of interest in this thesis. This

(32)

research revealed that in ethnic diverse groups language barriers are hard to overcome.

Managers with a wider ethnic and language knowledge will have a better chance to lead these teams to good performances than managers with less of this knowledge. Another promising leadership style to manage the increasingly diverse workforce seems to be transformational leadership (Kearney & Gebert, 2009). Kearney and Gebert (2009) research suggests that transformational leadership helps drawing the benefits entailed by both demographic and informational/cognitive team diversity. Interesting is that this type of leadership has close connections with emotional intelligence and more specifically the regulation of others‟ emotions (López-Zafra, Garcia-Retamero & Augusto Landa, 2008). Transformational leadership style typically involves establishing oneself as a role model by gaining the trust and confidence of the followers (Bass, 1985, 1998; cited in López-Zafra et al., 2008). This includes a more emotional relationship with followers, as compared to other leadership styles like transactional leadership, and focuses on more aspects of influence. Future research should consider which of these aspects are of specific importance in team diversity. The same

research design as this can be used with a larger amount of participants. The additional field study is essential to link the theoretical data to real life interactions. If performed in actual company environment it is essential to seek approval in an early stage of the set-up.

Conclusion

This current field and experimental research design highlights once again the need for deeper understanding of diverse group functioning and its management. The methodological limitations were considerable and the data are in fact not strong enough to prove or falsify the predictions made regarding leader emotion management. This research effort did help in mapping the certain aspects of our understanding of group functioning regarding group trust and relational conflicts, and the role of emotion management. We may hope this helps raising awareness and focusing effort in finding the best ways teams can work together.

(33)

References

Austin, E. J. (2010). Measurement of ability emotional intelligence: Results for two new tests.

British Journal of Psycholog, 101, 563–578.

Barefoot, J. C.; Beckham, J. C.; Haney, T. L.; Siegler, I. C.; Lipkus, I. M. (1993) Age

differences in hostility among middle-aged and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 8, 3–9.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.

Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., Zanutto, E. L., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20, 35–50.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 288–307

Carron, A. V.,Widmeyer,W. N.,& Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of

Sport Psychology, 7, 244–266.

Dijkstra, M. T. M., Van Dierendonck, D., & Evers, A. (2005). Responding to conﬂict at work and individual well–being: The mediating role of ﬂight behaviour and feelings of helplessness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 119–135. Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 84, 445–455.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26–49.

(34)

Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 271–305.

Ely; R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 6, 229–273.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human

Relations, 53, 1027–1055.

Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,

53, 575–604.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identification. London and New York: Routledge. Homan, A. C., & Greer, L. L. (2013). Considering diversity: The positive effects of

considerate leadership in diverse teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 105–125.

Homan, A. C., Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Koning, L. (2010). Believing shapes seeing: The impact of diversity beliefs on the construal of group composition. Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations, 13, 477–493.

Homan, A. C., & Jehn, K. A. (2010). Organizational faultlines. In K. N. Hamnum, B. McFeeters, & L. Booysen (Eds.), Leadership Across Differences: Cases and

Perspectives (pp. 87–94). San Francisco , CA : Pfeiffer/John Wiley & Sons.

Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., Côté, S. & Bogo, A. (August 6, 2013). The role of leader

emotional intelligence in managing team personality diversity. Paper presented at the

(35)

Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse workforce. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.).

Group processes and productivity, 136–180.

Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation,

17, 465–495.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.

Jordan, P.J. & Troth, A.C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17, 195–218. Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta–analysis

and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54–78.

Kearney, E., Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77–89. Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency

theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 62–82.

Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2013). Repairing trust with

individuals vs. groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 1–14.

López-Zafra, E., Garcia-Retamero, R. & Augusto Landa, J. M. (2008). The role of transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, and group cohesiveness on leadership emergence. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 37–49.

(36)

MacCann, C. (2010). Further examination of emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence: A latent variable analysis of fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 490–496.

MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8, 540–551.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232–242.

Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8, 193–210. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the

multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. The Academy of Management

Review, 21, 402–433

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and

Intelligence, 9, 185–211.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85, 102–111.

Tajfel, H. T., & Turner, J. J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social

Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Monterey, 33–47.

Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and

Negotiation, 12, 217–241.

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Van de Vliert, E. (2005). Effects of perceived skill dissimilarity and task interdependence on helping in work teams. Journal of Management, 31, 73-89.

(37)

Van Dick, R., Van Knippenberg, D., Hägele, S., Guillaume, Y. R.F. & Brodbeck, F. C. (2008). Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs.

Human Relations, 61, 1463–1492.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of

Psychology, 58, 515-541.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.

Wiersema, M. F, & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. The Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91–121.

Williams, K. Y., & O‟Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140. Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. (2002). The interface of leadership and team processes. Group

(38)

Appendices

A: Introduction for team members (informed consent information, study 1)

Thank you for participating in this research, which is part of my Master-thesis. We are

interested in your experiences at work. The following questionnaire is completely anonymous, and the organization will not see individual answers. Your responses will only be presented at an aggregate level, and they cannot be traced back to you in any way. The whole questionnaire consists of six short parts. Count on five to ten minutes to complete the entire questionnaire. Prior to each questionnaire, a brief instruction will be given which explains what is expected from you. I ask you to complete the whole questionnaire otherwise I cannot use your data in my masterthesis research. Success!

B: Introduction for team leaders (informed consent information, study 1)

Thank you for participating in this research, which is part of my Master-thesis. We are interested in your experiences at work and the way you perceive your teams. The following

questionnaire is completely anonymous, and the organization will not see individual answers. Your responses will only be presented at an aggregate level, and they cannot be traced back to you in any way. The whole questionnaire consists of seven short parts. Count on appr. 35 minutes to complete the entire questionnaire. Prior to each questionnaire, a brief instruction will be given which explains what is expected from you. I ask you to complete the whole questionnaire otherwise I cannot use your data in my masterthesis research. Success!

C: Declaration of approval (informed consent information, study 1)

"I hereby declare to be clearly informed about the nature and method of this research. I agree entirely to participate voluntary in this study. I reserve the right to withdraw without any given reason and realize that I can stop the experiment at any time. If my research data will be in scientific

publications, or will be made public or any way, my research data will be completely anonymous. My personal data will not be read without my permission by any third party.”

If I want further information about this research, I can turn to the researcher Sjoerd Dijkstra (sjoerd_d60@hotmail.com) or Dr. Astrid Homan (phone: +3120 5255955, e-mail a.c.homan@uva.nl; Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, room 2.03). For any complaints about the study, please contact the member of the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology of the University of

Amsterdam, Dr. F. ten Velden (phone: +3120 5256755, F.S.tenvelden@uva.nl, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, 4th Floor Diamond Exchange).

(39)

D: Questionnaire for team members (Study 1&2) Strongly disagree Strongly agree Subgrouping/categorization

1. My team often splits into subgroups while we work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. My team often breaks into several smaller teams while we work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. My team divides into subsets of people while we work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. At meetings of our team, subgroups will sit together. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. When we start working, the whole team will split up in different teams. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. When we are working, subgroups will start to form. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relationship conflict

7. How much are personality clashes evident in this team? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. How much interpersonal fighting about people issues is there in this

team? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. How much do you think that members don‟t get along interpersonally? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. We fight about non-work things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. We often disagree about non-work (social or personality) things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Task conflict

12. How much disagreement is there among members of your team over

work-related opinions? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. How much conflict of ideas is there in this team? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. We often disagree about work things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. We have many task-related conflicts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. How different are members‟ viewpoints on decisions? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Team trust

17. My team members expect complete truth from each other. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. My team members are certain they could trust each other. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Everyone in my team shows absolute integrity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. I am sure everyone in my team keeps his word. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Open team communication

21. There is open communication in this team. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Everyone has a chance to express their opinion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Team members maintain a high level of idea exchange. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cohesion

24. The team is a unity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. The members of my team feel connected to each other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. There is a sense of unity within my team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. I identify with my group members. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. I see myself as a member of this group. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. I am pleased to be a member of this group. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. I feel strong ties with members of my group. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. I see the group as one collective. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. I see the group as consisting of unique individuals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Task interdependance

33. I have a one-person job; I rarely have to check or work with the other

team members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34. I have to work closely with my team members to do my work properly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7