09 juni 2015 Linde van Vlijmen 10186557 Daniel Sligte Aantal woorden: 4865
Making Diversity Work: Different Effects of Diversity on Group Creativity Linde van Vlijmen (10186557), 9 juni 2015
ABSTRACT Among, organisations a popular belief exists that diversity will enhance creativity and innovation. Therefore more women and members of ethnic minorities are recruited. However, research results regarding the effect of diversity on creativity are mixed and inconclusive. This review uses the Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM) to explain how different types of diversity activate different processes, which in turn influence creativity differently. Diversity is supposed to influence creativity positively, because diverse groups hold more and more distinct domain- and creativity-relevant skills. Research supports the notion that deep-level diversity activates an information-elaboration process, which benefits creativity. However, surface-level diversity is likely to elicit social-categorization processes. The perception of subgroups withholds the elaboration of information and therefore negatively influences group-creativity. Especially, when more characteristics within a subgroup are correlated. In conclusion, recruitment strategies should focus on increasing deep-level and reducing surface-level diversity in groups rather than simply creating diverse groups.
Index
Introduction: The different effects of diversity on group-creativity blz. 2 Impact of diversity on group-creativity through informational processes blz. 4
Deep-level and surface-level diversity
The impact of diversity on group-creativity through informational processes.
Impact of diversity on creativity through social processes blz. 8
Conclusion & Limitations blz. 11
The different Effects of Diversity on Group-Creativity
Creativity is important for an organisation’s ability to adapt to today’s fast changing environment. Creativity provides strategic advantages, such as innovation, creating products and decision-making, which are critical for organisational survival. Nowadays, much of creative work is carried out in multidisciplinary teams (Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel & Barkema, 2012). Furthermore, increased civil rights of women and ethnic minorities cause these working groups to be more diverse (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Broadly defined, diversity is a team characteristic (Hoever et al. 2012) denoting the extent to which someone uses any attribute to tell themselves that another person is different (Homan, van Knippenberg, van Kleef & de Dreu, 2007). These attributes can be demographic (e.g. gender, race, nationality) or non- demographic (e.g. education, profession, tenure; Mannix & Neale, 2005). A popular belief exists that diversity is beneficial for creativity, causing organisations worldwide to recruit more women and minorities in order to create diverse teams (Leslie, Mayer & Kravitz, 2014). However, research findings supporting these recruitment strategies are mixed and inconclusive (Choi, 2010; Dunlop & Beauchamp, 2011; Gilson, Lim, Luciano & Choi, 2013; Harvey, 2013; Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel & Barkema, 2012; Homan, van
Knippenberg, van Kleef & de Dreu, 2007; Kooij-de Bode, van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2008; Meyer, Shemla & Schermuly, 2011; Pearsall, Ellis & Evans, 2008). In addition, creative advantages of diversity are often found under narrow conditions (Hoever et al. 2012). This raises the question whether the popular faith in the power of diversity is legitimate and which processes might explain these mixed results?
Creativity can be described as a process of divergent and convergent thinking to generate, evaluate, refine and eventually converge on a final idea (Gielnik, Frese, Graf & Kampschulte, 2012). However, most articles focus on the creative product rather than the process (Amabile, 1983). One of the most widely used definitions by scholars is that the creative product is an idea that is both novel, appropriate, useful, effective or valuable and achieved by using heuristics. The latter meaning that the path to the solution is not clear or straightforward and an algorithm must be developed. For example, when solving an addition problem one cannot be considered creative because there is a clear pathway to the solution, or an algorithm. However, finding a cure for leukemia would be considered creative according to this definition, because no path that leads to the solution exists yet. Hence, no algorithm for curing leukaemia exists When applied to work-group performance, creativity can be described as the joint novelty and usefulness of a final idea developed by a group of people (Hoever, et al., 2012).
The process of creative idea generation is composed of three components, according to Amabile’s conceptualization of creativity (1983). In order to be creative, domain-relevant skills are necessary. Factual knowledge, technical skills and relevant talents are a basis for every performance. In addition, creativity-relevant skills are used for applying thinking styles and heuristics for exploring new pathways to solutions. The third component is
task-motivation, which comprises all motivational variables that determine how a given task is approached. According to the value-in-diversity hypotheses diversity is believed to have a positive impact on creativity because diversity increases the amount of domain- and creativity-relevant skills available to a group (Mannix & Neale, 2005). In other words,
diverse groups are expected to be provided with more Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) and different underlying perspectives than homogeneous groups (Hoever et al., 2012). The information/decision-making perspective supports the value-in-diversity hypothesis (Gilson, Lim, Luciano & Choi, 2013; Mannix & Neale, 2005). This perspective adds that due to the variety of perspectives and information, diverse groups, compared to homogeneous groups, have to put in more effort to overcome conflicting viewpoints. Consequently, diverse groups are forced to more thoroughly process the information, which may prevent the group from converging on a final idea too easily. As a result diverse groups are expected to be more creative (van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004; Mannix & Neale, 2005).
However, not all theories regarding diversity and creativity are as optimistic as the information/decision-making perspective. Social categorization perspectives state that diversity impacts creativity negatively. Individuals tend to compare themselves to others (Choi, 2007) and use these perceived differences for allocating the self and others to
perceptual in- and out-groups (Mannix & Neale, 2005). When this happens, intergroup bias influences intergroup relationships (Choi, 2007; van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004). Intergroup bias is tendency to have a more negative attitude towards people with an out-group status and to be more positive about one’s in-out-group (van Knippenberg, et al., 2004). For-instance, out-group members are seen as less trustworthy and their information is regarded as less valuable and validated. Due to the creation of subgroups, social categorization theory predicts that diversity inhibits creative performance (Choi, 2007; Dunlop & Beauchamp, 2011; Meyer, Shemla & Schermuly, 2011; Pearsall, Ellis & Evans, 2008).
Research results have been as contradicting as the theories themselves. Both positive and negative influences of diversity on creativity were found (Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel & Barkema, 2012; Kooij-de Bode, van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2008), supporting
(and contradicting) both information/decision-making perspective and social categorization theory. In order to explain the mixed results, van Knippenberg, de Dreu and Homan (2004) proposed the Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM, figure 1). This model combines the information-elaboration process, described by information-decision-making perspective, and the social-categorization processes. However, CEM emphasizes that both the information-elaboration process and social-categorization processes from these theories occur
simultaneously between the effect of diversity on creativity (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). However, due to the mixed results, whenever either one of the process is more likely to be activated remains unclear. This paper reviews recent literature regarding information-elaboration and social-categorization processes. By doing so, it aims at both explaining the mixed results regarding the impact of diversity on group-creativity and identifying in which situation, information-elaboration and social-categorization processes or more likely to be activated.
First, the concept of diversity will be further elaborated on by discussing a key characteristic of diversity, namely the distinction between deep-level and surface-level characteristics. In addition, the first section described how diversity impacts group-creativity through the information-elaboration process of CEM. The focus of the second paragraph is on the social-categorization processes through which diversity impacts group-creativity. In addition, this paragraph explains how this process relates to the informational process. A general conclusion is given in which the results are summarized and some limitations and ideas for future reserach are described.
Impact of Diversity on Group-Creativity Through Informational processes In the first section, the information-elaboration process that links diversity to group-creativity is discussed. People can differ on different characteristics and these characteristics can be classified into two broader diversity types. Therefore, before turning to the
information-elaboration process, the distinction between deep-level and surface-level characteristics is addressed and how these two types are related to the CEM processes.
Deep-level and Surface-Level Diversity
Differences between team-members can be classified as either deep- or surface-level differences (Mannix & Neale, 2005). According to Harrison, Price and Bell (1985) surface-level diversity includes differences among group members on visible, biological
diversity encompasses differences regarding underlying assumptions, beliefs, values, skills and knowledge. Hence, group-members differ on their domain- and creativity relevant skills (Amabile, 1983). According to the informational process from CEM, differences in domain- and creativity relevant skills should enhance creativity (Gilson, Lim, Luciano & Choi, 2013). On the other hand, surface-level characteristics like gender, race or nationality provide little new perspectives and KSAs to a group (Harrison, Price & Bell, 1985) and thus domain- and creativity relevant skills are not increased. However, due to the visible nature of surface-level diversity, social categorization processes might be activated (van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004). Consequently, group interrelationship are harmed causing task-motivation to decrease. Overall, surface-level diversity is expected to negatively impact creativity because it provides little extra domain- and creativity relevant skills to a group and potentially decreases task-motivation. The process of how surface-level diversity impacts group-creativity is discussed in the next paragraph. First, attention is given to how informational processes shape the impact of deep-level diversity on group-creativity.
The Impact of Deep-Level Diversity on Group-Creativity Through Informational Processes. Deep-level diversity is thought to influence creativity positively because it provides groups with more domain- and creativity relevant skills. For instance, choi (2007)
investigated whether different characteristics predicted creative behaviour by using a sample of employees from a Korean electronics company. Creative behaviour can be defined as the expression of creativity that might result in a novel or useful idea regarding the improvement of working methods, procedures or processes. When it comes to generating ideas, diverse groups are expected to have an advantage over homogeneous groups. Due to a variety of perspectives and information available in diverse groups, members stimulate each other with their novel ideas leading to even more novel ideas (Harvey, 2013). Indeed, Choi’s (2007) study found that on the group-level, functional background diversity was positively related to individual creative behaviour. Meaning, that when a the group is composed of members coming from different departments, group members were more likely to express creative ideas. Group members can stimulate idea generation because they hold different perspectives and expertise knowledge regarding their function and department. Therefore, functional background differences can be regarded as deep-level diversity. Choi’s (2007) study provide some support for the positive link between deep-level diversity and creativity.
Although, a positive link between deep-level diversity and creativity was found, nothing can be said about causality. Furthermore, the involved processes were not
investigated. Harvey (2013) proposed that deep-level diversity impacts idea generation through divergent processes. A divergent process entails the extent to which people generate unique ideas. Deep-level diversity was operationalised as perspective diversity. In this case group members were given different, but compatible, perspectives regarding the task solution. Harvey (2013) performed two studies to investigate whether groups with
perspective diversity were better at idea generation than groups whose members held similar perspectives. Contradicting the expectation of the author and to the above findings, both studies found that perspective diversity was unrelated to idea generation.
Although Choi’s (2007) study was a field study and Harvey (2013) performed a strictly controlled laboratory study, both researchers did not measure how the diverse information coming from deep-level diversity was used for creative performance. Earlier it was explained that groups benefit from diversity, because they have to process information more thoroughly in order to overcome conflicting viewpoints (van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004). However, in Harvey’s study the different perspectives were compatible with each other. Perhaps, because of the compatible perspectives, deep-diversity groups were not challenged to share their information in order to overcome their diverging viewpoints. Consequently, they performed equally to the control group. The importance of knowledge sharing lies as the core of CEM (Mannix & Neale, 2005; van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004)
The mere existence of diverse domain- and creativity relevant skills is not enough for deep-diversity to be beneficial for group-creativity (van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004). Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel and Barkema (2012) found no direct effect of deep-level diversity on group-creativity. Knowledge has to be shared and elaborated on for groups to be able to use the information for idea generation (Hoever, van Knippenberg, Barkema & van Ginkel, 2012; Kooij-de Bode, van Knippenbeg & van Ginkel, 2008 ). For instance, it was shown that tenure diversity was only positively related to creativity when the group shared their knowledge (Gilson, Lim, Luciano & Choi, 2013). Organisational tenure is the time an employee has remained with the same organisation. Besides having KSAs
regarding one job, employees gather knowledge about norms, values and support and reward systems over the course of time. When groups are diverse in tenure, they vary in the
organisation specific information that is available to its members. Indeed, Gilson et al. (2013) showed that tenure diversity and knowledge sharing were linked to creativity because
and customer services. So deep-diversity is indeed associated with creativity because it increases employees’ knowledge and information which is necessary for creativity.
Although Gilson, et al. (2013) measured individual creativity, the same results have been found for group-creativity (Hoever, van Knippenberg, Barkema & van Ginkel, 2012). Instead of knowledge sharing, perspective taking was studied. When groups are diverse in perspectives it means that they differ in their view on the task and the information and
solutions they have. Perspective taking forces people to understand another person’s view by understanding their thoughts, motives and feelings. In order to do so, information has to be shared and elaborated on by the group. The study’s results indeed found that the effect of perspective diversity on information elaboration was stronger for groups that deliberately took on one anothers perspective. In addition, diverse groups that engaged in perspective taking came up with more creative final ideas than groups that were not diverse or did not engage in perspective taking. Overall, support is given for the expectation that deep-diversity benefits creativity. However, this effect is only found when diverse groups share and
elaborate on the different domain- and creativity relevant skills that are present in a group. It was expected that deep-level diversity was positively related to group-diversity, because it increases domain- and creativity relevant skills. The above research indicate that deep-level diversity seems to be positively related to group-creativity (Choi, 2007; Gilson, et al. 2013; Hoever et al., 2012). However, this is only true when information is shared and elaborated on by group members (Gilson, et al. 2013; Hoever et al., 2012). These results are in accordance with CEM and Amabile’s (1983) conceptualization of creativity. Deep-level diversity, whether based on functional background, perspective or organizational tenure, increases the amount of domain- and creativity relevant skills which are needed for producing creative products (Amabile, 1983). Because group members hold distinct information, group members are forced to share and elaborate on information in order to overcome conflicting viewpoints (van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004; Mannix & Neale, 2005). As a result, new information and pathways to solutions can be explored and creativity is increased
(Gilson, et al. 2013; Hoever et al., 2012). Deep-level diversity influences creativity through the information-elaboration process. Therefore, the presence of deep-level diversity can be seen as a situation in which the information-elaboration process is activated more strongly than in the absence of deep-level diversity. Surface-level characteristics add little domain- and creativity-relevant skills to a group. Therefore, a situation in which surface-level
characteristics are present might not activate information-elaboration processes as strongly as the presence of deep-level characteristics. In turn, social-categorization processes might have
a chance to override the positive effect of information-elaboration on creativity. The effect of surface-level diversity on group-creativity through social-categorization processes is
discussed next.
Impact of Diversity on Creativity Through Social Processes
In Harvey’s (2013) study, members of deep-diversity groups had a more negative overall mood than members from control groups, meaning that the former members appeared to be uncomfortable, made little eye-contact and communicated more angrily. It is likely that group members perceived the diversity and as a result, social processes were elicited. The perception of diversity causes people to judge others as being similar or different to them. In addition, similar others are liked more than those who are different (Mannix & Neale, 2005). As a result, diversity can cause people to categorize people into subgroups and distinguish between in- and out-group. This distinction can result in an inter-group bias, which is the tendency to have a more negative attitude towards people with an out-group status and to be more positive about one’s in-group (van Knippenberg, et al., 2004). For instance, people are more likely to trust in-group members more, value their information more and are more willing to cooperate with them (Kooij – de Bode, van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2008). According to CEM (van Knippenberg, et al. 2004), diversity elicits both informational and social categorization processes. Only, in some situations informational processes are stronger and override the negative consequences of social categorization processes. In the previous section, it was shown that deep-level diversity is likely to elicit informational processes because a groups domain- and creativity relevant skills are increased. Surface-level diversity includes visible, biological characteristics such as gender, race or ethnicity (Harrison et al. 1983). Due to the visible nature of surface-level diversity, social categories are readily accessible and therefore more likely to result in inter-group bias. In this paragraph, literature is discussed to show how surface-level diversity influences group-creativity through social categorization processes.
CEM predicts that social categorization processes negatively affect intergroup relations, by damaging trust and group cohesion and that this harms creative performance (van Knippenberg, et al., 2004). Indeed, it was found when groups perceive others to be similar on surface-level characteristics, they are more motivated to maintain and create relationships with their team members (Dunlop & Beauchamp, 2011). In other words, surface-similarity perceptions are positively related to social cohesion. Meaning that, when
the perception of surface-similarity is low (e.g. diversity), people are less concerned with intergroup relationships. On the other hand, surface-similarity was also related to task-cohesion, although, to a lesser extent than social cohesion. Task cohesion refers to group members’ motivation to pursue task goals together. Pearsall, Ellis and Evans (2008), linked the previous findings to group-creativity. They found that the negative effect of gender diversity on creativity was partially mediated by emotional conflict. Emotional conflict is the opposite of social cohesion and entails anger, resentment and mistrust towards group
members, which in turn impairs task cohesion and keeps people from elaborating on
opposing perspectives. Perspective taking was shown to be important for creativity (Hoever et al., 2012). These results support the notion that surface-level diversity have a negative impact on creativity because intergroup-relations are damaged and people are less focused on task performance.
However, Pearsall, Ellis and Evans (2008) found in their study that gender diversity only had a negative impact on creativity when the perception of diversity was activated. Specifically, groups that consisted of both male and female members were only less creative on a designing task, when beforehand they were asked to design a product for men
exclusively. In doing so, the presence of men and woman become salient. This has been called a faultline in literature (Homan, van Knippenberg, van Kleef & de Dreu, 2007; van Knippenberg, et al. 2004; Meyer, Shemla & Schermuly, 2011; Pearsall et al., 2008) . This is a hypothetical dividing line that separates a group into homogenous subgroups based on one or more demographic attributes (Meyer, Shemla & Schermuly, 2011). Faultline theory states that the mere existence of diversity does not automatically have an effect on creativity (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Note, the same accounted for deep-level diversity regarding information elaboration. In order for surface-level diversity to have an effect on creativity faultlines have to be salient to group members. When subgroups are perceived, intergroup bias harms social and task cohesion (Meyer, Shemla & Schermuly, 2011). In turn, social and task cohesion were shown to have a negative influence on creativity (Pearsal et al., 2008).
Kooij-de Bode, van Knippenberg and van Ginkel (2008) argue that intergroup bias does not harm creativity because low task and social cohesion withholds groups from reaching consensus. Rather, intergroup bias influences the information elaboration process. The authors found support for their statement. Their study showed that ethnic diversity negatively influenced information elaboration and creativity, when information regarding the task was distributed across group members, instead of providing all group members with the same information. Based on these results, ethnic diversity seem to interfere with information
elaboration due to intergroup bias. Remarkably, information distribution resembles what was earlier named perspective diversity and considered deep-level diversity (Harvey, 2013; Hoever, et al., 2012). This suggests that the researchers investigated both deep-level and surface-level diversity. Furthermore, the social categorization processes elicited by ethnic diversity seemed to override the informational process activated by perspective diversity. However, Kooij-de Bode, et al., (2008) also found that information elaborated and creativity increased when ethnically diverse groups with distributed perspectives were explicitly
instructed to integrate the information. In this case, the instruction enforced the informational process and eliminates the negative consequences of the social categorization processes.
When groups differ on both deep-level and surface-level characteristics than these characteristics can be correlated or uncorrelated (Meyer, Shemla & Schermuly, 2011). In the previously discussed study, ethnicity and information distribution were uncorrelated. People with the same ethnicity did not deliberately receive the same piece of information in the dispersed information conditions. However, the ethnicity faultline was strong enough to have an impact on information elaboration (Kooij-de Bode, van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2008). According to faultline theory, faultlines become stronger when more characteristics are highly correlated with each other because this enforces the perception of homogeneity of subgroups (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Homan, van Knippenberg, van Kleef and de Dreu, (2007) found that when deep-level and surface-level diversity are correlated, information elaboration and task and social cohesion are reduced. The researchers created surface-level faultlines based on gender and personality feedback. The faultlines were enforced by seating group members with similar gender and feedback next to each other and differing members opposite of each other. The deep-level diversity consisted of diversity in received
information. When faultlines were correlated, same sex and personality members received the same information. Uncorrelated faultlines encompassed members of different sexes and with different personalities receiving the same information. Hence, in the latter case forming subgroups on a characteristic is more difficult, because not all three characteristics can be described to the same group of people. When faultlines were uncorrelated, deep-level diversity had a positive impact on information elaboration and task and social cohesion. Hence, the informational rather than the social categorization process is activated. In turn, increased information elaboration enhances creativity (Gilson et al., 2013; Hoever, et al., 2012; Kooij-de Bode et al., 2008).
Literature supports CEM’s expectation that social categorization processes negatively influence creativity (Dunlop & Beauchamp, 2011; Homan, et al., 2007; Kooij-de Bode et al.,
2008; Meyer, et al., 2011; Pearsall et al., 2008;). Social categorization processes causes the perception of faultlines. However, surface-level diversity does not necessarily result in the salience of faultlines. Only, when subgroups become salient to group members than
intergroup bias causes a reduction in social and task cohesion. Faultlines can become stronger when more characteristics are correlated. When deep-level characteristics and informational characteristics are correlated than information elaboration is influenced negatively. In turn, information elaboration negatively influences group-creativity. However, when deep-level and surface-level characteristics are not aligned than informational elaboration and thus group-creativity remain unharmed. The above results also indicate that a situation in which surface-level characteristics are salient is likely to activate social-categorization processes and thereby override information-elaboration processes.
Conclusion and Discussion
This review had two aims. The first was trying to explain the mixed results by distinguishing between information-elaboration and social-categorization processes. The second was to find circumstances in which either one of the processes were more likely to be activated. The first paragraph showed that deep-level diversity positively influences creativity through the information-elaboration process (Choi, 2007; Gilson, et al. 2013; Hoever et al., 2012). Deep-level diversity increases the available domain- and creativity relevant skills which are needed for creativity. However, diverse groups are only more creative when they share and elaborate on each other’s information. When this happens, new heuristics can be developed from the existing information leading to new pathways to solutions, or group-creativity. Because deep-level diversity affects creativity through information-elaboration, the presence of deep-deep-level diversity can be seen as a situation that activates the information-elaboration process to the degree that it overrides negative consequences of social-categorization processes.
These processes were linked to surface-level diversity in the second paragraph. The literature showed that surface-level diversity only negatively influences creativity when the surface-level differences lead to the perception of salient subgroups, or faultlines. In this case, intergroup bias leads to less task and social cohesion. In turn, the lack of motivation to
achieve goals and maintain relationships cause group members to decrease information-elaboration (Dunlop & Beauchamp, 2011; Homan, et al., 2007; Kooij-de Bode et al., 2008; Meyer, et al., 2011; Pearsall et al., 2008;). So rather, than directly influencing group
creativity, social-categorization processes inhibit the information-elaboration process. When both deep- and surface-level diversity is available, than the social-categorization processes
activated by surface-level characteristics override the positive effect of deep-level diversity. However, this is only true when deep- and surface-level characteristics are correlated.
Meaning that both attributes can be used to create the same subgroup (Homan, et al., 2007). It seems to be that the visible nature of surface-level characteristics creates circumstances for social-categorization processes to be activated.
Overall this study aimed at providing a clear overview of how diversity influences creativity differently. However, some limitations of this review should be mentioned. The first regards the distinction between deep-level and surface-level diversity. It could be argued that distinguishing between these two types of diversity is not useful. Mannix & Neale (2005) point out that a fine line between deep-level and surface-level diversity exists. For instance, gender is regarded to be a surface-level characteristic, because of its biological and readily visible nature. Although, gender might not directly determine someone’s attitude towards work or group-members. These characteristics may contribute to certain life experiences that have helped shape their attitudes. However, in this review it is not stated that surface-level characteristics such as gender do not provide relevant domain- and creativity-related skills at all. Rather, the visible nature of these characteristics causes groups to be less likely to
discover those informational differences due to social-categorization processes.
A third limitation of the current review concerns the impact-factor of some of the articles used in the second paragraph. The impact-factor can be seen as a standard against which the quality of a research journal can be judged. When the impact-factor of a journal is around 2 or higher, than the articles published in that journal can be expected to be of high quality. However, some of the articles used in the second paragraph were published in a journal with an impact factor of 0.88. This can be considered as very low. Therefore, the conclusions from those articles might be less trustworthy. The reason why these articles were used anyway was first of all, because the experiments they described were deemed relevant for the review. Second, the 5-year impact-factor was much more acceptable (1.27). This means that articles from this journal have been cited more over the past 5-years than they are being cited now. Finally, the authors of one of the articles had written more articles about this topic that were published in much more reputable journals. As a result, it was assumed that the researchers were capable of performing high quality research and that this article would be no exception.
Based on this review, some ideas for future research can be proposed. For instance, most literature focuses on either surface-level or deep-level diversity. In addition, most studies focus on one characteristic in a strictly controlled laboratory setting. However, in
real-life, it seems unlikely that a team differs solely on one characteristic. For instance in a multidisciplinary work-group, it is likely that group members differ on functional and
educational background, but also on age, gender and nationality. Although, Kooij-de Bode, et al. (2008) and Homan et al. (2008) already broadly addressed this problem. However, more research is needed on when and how these types of diversity interact and which of the many characteristic on which people differ will or will not activate information-elaboration and social-categorization processes. By studying this, more insight is gained in how to compose work-groups such that it facilitates and increases task-performance.
Finally, globalization does not only make teams more diverse, but also more distributed. Nowadays, it is more common for employees to be part of a virtual team that consists of people working in different countries. Virtual teams mostly use computer-mediated communication, such as e-mail, chat rooms or videoconferencing. to interact with each other. Because of the lack of face-to-face communication, surface-level diversity might be less visible. As a result, social-categorization processes might not be activated as much in virtual teams as in face-to-face teams. Staples and Zhao (2006) investigated diversity in virtual teams. Indeed, they found that virtual teams with surface-level diversity experienced less conflict and more cohesion than face-to-face teams with surface-level diversity.
However, empirical evidence is needed to investigate whether diversity influences creativity differently when teams are virtual compared to face-to-face.
Organisations tend to emphasize the importance of diversity for creativity. Recruitment strategies such as preferential selection of women and ethnic minorities are applied in order to make groups more diverse. However, according to the literature discussed in the present review, strategies should focus on finding employees that adds diversity in the shape of unique information and skills rather than demographics. Then, creativity can bloom and help organisation to adapt to today’s fast changing environment.
References
conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (2), 357 - 376. Choi, J. N. (2010). Group composition and employee creative behaviour in a Korean
electronics company: Distinct effects of relational demography and group diversity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80 (2), 213 - 234.
Dunlop, W. L., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2011). Does similarity make a difference? Predicting cohesion and attendance behaviour within exercise group settings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practise, 15 (3), 258 - 266.
Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., Luciano, M. M. & Choi, J. N. (2013). Unpacking the cross-level effects of tenure diversity, explicit knowledge, and knowledge sharing on individual creativity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86 (2), 203 - 222. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H. & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task
performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 45 (5), 1029 - 1045.
Harvey, S. (2013). A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep-level diversity on group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49 (5), 822 - 832. Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P. & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering
team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (5), 982 - 996.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A. & de Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of diverse work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11 (2), 79 - 94.
Kooij-de Bode, H. J. M., van Knippenberg, D. & van Ginkel, W. P. Ethnic diversity and distributed information in group decision making: The importance of information elaboration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12 (4), 307 - 320. Mannix, E. & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and
reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6 (2), 31–55.
Meyer, B., Shemla, M., & Schermuly, C. C. (2011). Social category salience moderates the effect of diversity faultlines on information elaboration. Small Group Research, 20(10), 1 - 26.
Leslie, L. M., Mayer, D. M., & Kravitz, D. A. (2014). The stigma of affirmative action: A stereotyping-bases theory and meta-analystic test of the consequences for
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. 2008. Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 225-234 Staples, D. S. & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus
face-to-face teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15 (4), 389 - 406.
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 (6), 1008 - 1022.
