Power, the silver lining of diversity:
The role of power in response to work group diversity
Master Thesis Anca Dranca Iacoban
(S1940694)
Supervisor: Floor Rink
Second reader: Jennifer Jordan
Word count: 6.094
ABSTRACT (98 words)
The current paper examines whether power buffers the negative consequences brought about by work group diversity by increasing favorable (1) interpersonal attitudes and (2) behavioral intentions. In an experimental setting, I manipulated both power and group diversity and measured team member self-reports. Results indicate that power blunts individuals to see diversity, making them trust, identify and evaluate homogeneous and heterogeneous teams as equivalent; and even help heterogeneous teams more. Further, team identification and approach related emotions were identified as mediators of the (1) interpersonal attitudes and (2) behavioral intentions respectively. Future research directions and practical implications are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
With diversity in work groups becoming a reality of today’s organizational world, learning how to cope with intra-group differences, and even taking competitive advantage of it have become an organizational priority (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Soutar, 2004; Yang, 2005). Generally speaking, diversity can be subdivided in two broad categories: (1) Surface-level diversity encompasses the existence of different demographic categories within a team, for example on the basis of race/ethnicity, gender or age.; (2) Deep-level diversity refers to the existence of individual differences in personality, values, attitudes, education, tenure and experience in a specific field such as marketing (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Mannix & Neale, 2005).
line with van Knippenberg and Schippers’ (2007) declaration of “bankruptcy of main effects”, the current paper, therefore, takes a more nuanced view of the role of diversity and considers the moderating effect of a member’s power role within a team.
Organizations, as well as individual employees, must learn how to deal with the inherent presence of diversity, due to the fact that work groups are often utilized as the primary unit within an organization to get tasks done (Applebaum & Batt, 1994). Yet to date, there is little research on diversity that differentiates amongst the positions that individuals hold in teams. This omission is remarkable, given that in teams, more often than not, there is a person who has power over others (e.g. a manager). Power is defined as asymmetrical control over valued resources in social relations (Fiske, 1993). Given the presence of a formal level of power dispersion or power hierarchy in most teams (Mannix & Neale, 2005), it is important to examine whether and how power is related to the threats associated with diversity.
the diversity conundrum and then elaborating on the ways in which power may affect responses to work group diversity.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The Dark Side of Diversity
having a higher availability of multiple resources and skills in terms of knowledge, skills and aptitudes (Rink & Ellemers, 2007), work group diversity engenders a tense working environment. And, consequently, these groups do not outperform homogeneous teams (Jehn et al., 1999; Murninghan & Conlon, 1991; Simons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999).
Although the social identity and self-categorization perspective has proved to be useful in explaining group-level responses towards diversity, researchers have started to question whether the abovementioned reasoning automatically applies to all members of a group, independently of their power position. For example, Chattopadhyay, Finn, and Ashkanasy (2010) showed that when high-status team members (i.e. surgeons) are confronted with high levels of professional dissimilarity they tend to experience less negative emotions, and report less negative events compared to low-status team members. In the section below I discuss theory relevant to this finding, and my research question, suggesting that the powerful are indeed less bothered by a high level of group diversity, and are more likely to be trustworthy and approach-oriented towards their fellow (either diverse or similar) group members than those for whom power is not salient.
The Silver Lining of Power
identification, trust and the approach-related emotions are crucial elements for creating positive interpersonal relations within a work group, as they signal a safe atmosphere and a cooperative environment (Edmunsson, Rink & Ellemers, 2006; Ellemers, De Gilder & Haslam, 2004). Second, behavioral intentions are the most proximal cognitive antecedents of action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Conner & Abrahams, 2001). By this logic, helping intentions should precede actual helping behavior, which is crucial for the performance of diverse work groups. With a focus on these measures, I can thus directly test how power affects the extent to which team members feel that they are operating in a conflict-laden environment, and how power increases their ability to capitalize on their diverse resources in order to reach full task potential (Pelled & Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999; Jehn et al., 1999).
The Affective Effects of Power
of power (e.g., increasing the profitability of an advertising agency) and over future outcomes outside any person’s ability to control them (e.g., national election results).
Given that the powerful tend to view their environment as less threatening compared to the powerless, I propose that they may also focus on the benefits, rather than the deficits of diversity within the work group that they control. The proposed positive effects of power in diverse work groups should be evident from a relatively high level of identification and trustworthiness reported by the powerful compared to the powerless. As indicated earlier, team identification generally plays a crucial role in explaining the negative relationship between diversity and team evaluations (e.g., Chattopadhyay, 1999; Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Oosterhof, 2003). When individuals dis-identify with their group, they rather blame the team, than the self for poor performance (Taylor & Doria, 1981); and want to leave a team once given the opportunity (Ellemers, Spears & Doosje, 1997). By contrast, those members who identify with their team view it in a brighter shade (Rink & Ellemers, 2006; Postmes, Spears, Lee & Novak, 2005). If this is the case, then the commonly occurring reduction in team identification in divers groups should only occur for team members who are powerless, not for those in power. These differential levels of team identification should, then in turn, determine the overall evaluation of the work team and the level of trust granted to team members. Specifically, I hypothesize:
H1B: This relationship between work group diversity, power and (1) the team’s evaluation and (2) trusting in the team should be mediated by the level of team identification. When power is not salient, team members will feel less identified with a diverse team than with a homogeneous team, which will cause them (1) to evaluate their team negatively and (2) to trust less in the team. When power is salient, team identification should not have this detrimental effect on the team’s evaluation and on the level of trust.
The Behavioral Effects of Power
Recent research on power further indicates that it leads to more approach-related behavior (Keltner et al., 2003). In short, power represents an “action-orientation” in which the powerful are considered to pursue opportunities and rewards in their environments. This behavior is generally explained by their sense of independence which makes them act freely. The basic implication is the proposition that the powerful will favor action over inaction in the majority of cases (Overbeck & Park, 2006). As empirical evidence of this assertion Galinsky, Gruenfeld and Magee (2003) showed that the powerful act to enhance their comfort and act in the benefit of the group at large. Similarly, Overbeck and Park (2001) argued that the powerful felt a higher sense of responsibility for the performance of the team. Given this knowledge, it is likely that the powerful will manifest higher behavioral intentions that will benefit the team, irrespective of being in a diverse or a homogeneous team.
that it elicits approach related emotions indicating happiness, enthusiasm and interest (Higgins, 1997, 2000; Ellemers, Scheepers & Popa, 2010). Consequently, it seems logical that when individuals experience orientation towards action associated with power, they would also manifest approach related emotions as the affective component that accompanies behavior. I posit that individuals might have favorable behavioral intentions because they feel interested and enthusiastic about the possible outcomes. For these reasons, I propose that approach related emotions mediate the relationship between work group diversity, power and helping intentions. Specifically, the salience of power should elicit approach related emotions, which in turn lead to higher behavioral intentions. By contrast, when power is not salient, the low degree of approach related emotions may lead to lower behavioral intentions. Drawing on the above line of reasoning, I hypothesize:
H2A: Powerful team members will display equivalent helping intentions in diverse and homogeneous teams. Participants in the control condition will manifest lower helping intentions in a diverse team than in a homogeneous team.
Team Identification Evaluation of collaboration
Power Trust
Approach related emotions Helping intentions
METHOD Participants and Design
I randomly assigned participants to a 2 (Power: high power vs. control) x 2 (Diversity: diverse vs. similar) between-subject experimental design. A total of 66 business students at the University of Groningen participated in the study (42 female and 24 male, Mean age = 21.80, SD = 2.30). At the end of the experiment, participants were debriefed, and rewarded for their participation (€7).
Procedure
Power role assignment. The experiment began with the power manipulation, adapted from Anderson & Berdahl (2002). Participants completed a “Leadership Questionnaire,” which asked them to report any leadership position they had held over the past few years, and to rate themselves on a number of traits (e.g., assertive, energetic, dominant). After completing this questionnaire, participants in the high-power condition were informed that, based on their score of this questionnaire, they would be assigned to the role of manager. They were instructed that they would have control over the evaluation of their team subordinates and over the distribution of the reward. Participants in the control condition did not have to fill in this questionnaire, and were simply assigned to a team without a specific description of their role within the team.
Self-report dependent variables. After the manipulations, but right before the team task would begin, participants were asked to give their first impression of the team. I assessed their approach related emotions, level of team identification, and trust intentions. I measured
approach-related emotions using a 5-item scale (adapted from Ellemers, Scheepers, & Popa, 2010). Items included, “To what extent you feel optimistic at this moment?” and “To what extent you feel interested at this moment” (α = .78). I measured team identification with a 5-item scale (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999). Items included, “Do you expect to identify with the other members of this team?” and “Do you expect to find it pleasurable to work in this team” (α =.85). Lastly, I measured trust with measured using a 2-item scale (Ferrin, Kim, Cooper & Dirks, 2007). Items included: “To what extent you expect to trust team member’s intentions” and “To what extent do you expect to believe in the good principles that will guide your team members’ behavior” (α=.54) . All measures were obtained on a 7-point Likert scale (1=Not at All; 7-Very Much).
Team collaboration. After having completed these items, participants entered the team collaboration. They were first given the chance to exchange short, “twitter-like” e-mail messages with their team members. To keep responses constant across conditions, participants first received the e-mails from their alleged team members, before they could return a message to them. The e-mail exchange was included in order to increase the realism of being in a computer mediated team.
sea. They faced the decision of ranking 12 items according to their importance for survival (e.g., sextant, shark repellent, 2 boxes of chocolate, 1 case of food ratios, shaving mirror). Participants were given 1 minute to complete a trial of 6 items and 3 minutes to complete the actual task of 12-items. I measured participants’ intentions to help using two items (α = .60) designed for this study. Specifically, I ask participants: “Are you willing to help you team members using your own time so they finish up their ranking order?” and “Are you willing to give your fellow team members your personal clues or other tips?” Participants responded to these items using an 7-point response scale (1=Not at All; 7-Very Much). A principal components analysis confirmed that both questions of helping intentions represent a single factor (eigenvalue ≥ 1.00; item loadings ≥ .84), together explaining 70.92% of the variance. The analysis aimed to identify if the questions that had been designed specifically for the experiment had the same underlying factor- helping intentions. Consequently, I averaged these items and analyzed the items as a single, combined scale.
Evaluation of the collaboration. At the end of the team collaboration, I requested that participants complete a post-test questionnaire, which included 3-items measuring participants’ evaluation of the collaboration (α=.83). These items included, “I think that my team actually was successful”, “I think that my team actually was cohesive”, and “I think that my team actually was effective” (adapted after Zhong, Phillips, Geoffrey, Leornadelli, & Galinsky, 2008).
questions (α=.67): “How diverse was your team?” and “How similar were you to your team members?”.
Demographics. Lastly, participants completed several demographic items, including age, gender and major.
RESULTS
Manipulation checks. As intended, participants in the high power group felt more responsible for the team’s performance (M = 5.44, SD=1.11) compared to those in the control group (M = 4.84, SD = 0.98), F (1, 66) = 5.18, p = .02; ŋ2 = .07. In the diversity condition, participants reported being less similar to others (M = 3.58, SD = 1.69) compared to those in a homogenous team (M = 4.94, SD = 1.14), F (1, 66) = 14.66, p < .0001, ŋ2 = .18. At the same time, participants in the diverse condition perceived their team more diverse (M = 5.03; SD = 1.31) compared to those in the homogeneous team (M = 2.94, SD = 1.19), F (1, 66) = 45.77, p < .0001, ŋ2 =.41. These results indicate that the composition manipulation worked as intended. Importantly, given that no interaction effects or multiple main effects existed, the power and diversity checks revealed that the two manipulations did not influence each other, and were truly orthogonal.
homogenous team, F (1, 66) = 13.31, p = .001, ŋ2 =.17. For individuals in the control group, there was no difference in positive emotions with respect to diverse or to homogeneous team, F (1, 66) = 0.093, p=.76. See Table 1.
Team identification. The results of an ANOVA on team identification revealed an interaction effect of power and diversity F (1, 66) = 10.79, p = .002, ŋ2=.14. Simple main effects showed that when individuals were in a high power position within the team, there is no difference in the level of team identification when in a diverse team or in a homogeneous team, F (1, 66) = .33, p=.33. For control participants, individuals identified less with a diverse team than in a homogeneous one, F (1, 66) = 13.24, p < .0001, ŋ2 =.17.
Trust. Power and diversity also interacted to affect trust, F (1, 66) = 10.32; p = .002. The simple main effects showed that there was no difference between the level of trust when individuals were in high power in either a diverse or a homogeneous team, F(1, 66) = 1.56; p=.14. However, for control condition participants, individuals trusted diverse teams less compared to homogeneous ones, F (1, 66) = 10.65, p =.002, ŋ2 =.14.
Helping intentions. For helping intentions, the results of the ANOVA indicate an interaction between power and diversity, F (1, 66) = 4.13, p = .04, ŋ2 = .06. Simple main effects revealed that high power participants were more inclined to help a diverse team than a homogenous team, F (1, 66) = 5.64, p = .002, ŋ2 =.08. By contrast, in the control group no difference in helping intentions were obtained for diverse team or homogeneous teams F (1, 66) = .28, p = .59.
high power position, there was no difference in how individuals evaluated the performance of a diverse team or that of a homogeneous team, F (1, 66) = 1.66, p = .20. In contrast, for those in the control condition, people considered diverse teams to perform worse than homogeneous teams, F (1, 66) = 8.38, p < .001, ŋ2 = .11.
Moderated mediation. I used bootstrapping methods to test the indirect effect of team identification on the relationship between diversity, and the evaluation of collaboration, under specific conditions of the power moderator (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007; Model 2). In the first equation, power and diversity were entered together and their interaction predicts team performance B=53, SE=.15, t=3.55. p < .00. When team identification was entered in the equation, it significantly predicted evaluation of collaboration B=.58, SE=.17, t=3.28, p< .00, whilst the interaction effect of power and diversity became non-significant B=.27, SE=.18, t=1.53, ns. when team identification was entered in the equation. Further testing of the conditional indirect effect estimates revealed that the level of team identification, only fully explained the way that participants evaluated the collaboration when there was no power cue, Boot =.43, SE=.16, Boot z= 2.62, p< .00. By contrast, the mediation pattern does not hold when individuals are in a high power position, Boot = -.11, SE= .12, Boot z= -.90, ns.
power was not salient, Boot =.52; SE=.18, Boot z=2.91; p<.00. In contrast, the mediation pattern does not hold when power is salient, Boot = -.13; SE=.14; Boot z=-.93, ns.
The same bootstrapping techniques were used to evaluate approach related emotions as a mediator. The interaction term of power and diversity significantly predicted helping behavior, B=.40; t=2.35; p=.02. Even though when approach related emotions were introduced in the equation the interaction terms becomes non-significant B=.29; t=-1.57; p=.12, bootstrapping techniques for both the power condition (B=-.06; Z=-87; p=.38, Lower CI=-12; Upper CI=.02) and for the control condition (B=.08; Z=1.08; p=.31; Lower CI=-006; Upper CI=.29) revealed that 0 is contained in the CI, and that consequently, the conditional indirect effect of approach related emotions was not significantly different from 0.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
In the present study I experimentally manipulated power and diversity within a laboratory setting to reveal that, indeed, power moderates the effect of diversity on behavioral intentions and on interpersonal attitudes. More specifically, when simply looking at the joint effect of power and diversity on the dependent measures, two distinct patterns arose. The fist pattern of results, as hypothesized, portrays the powerful as attaching importance to their team, being relatively trustworthy towards fellow team members and being positive about the collaboration, independent of whether they were placed in a diverse team or in a homogeneous one. This pattern did not hold for individuals in the control condition who responded significantly more negative towards a diverse team than a homogeneous team.
been provided (Anderson& Berdahl, 2002) The fact that approach related emotions did not mediate work group diversity, however, is a sign that other mediators might operate- for example degree of task interdependence. Taken together, nevertheless, these two unexpected findings are a theoretical contribution to both the power and the diversity literature. They strengthen the image of the powerful as action orientated (Galinsky, Gruendfeld & Magee, 2003) while also assuming responsibility of the team’s success (Overbeck& Pack, 2003), even more so for diverse teams. Ultimately such a pro-social behavior increases the chances of offering a nourishing environment for diverse teams to flourish in.
practical standpoint, these perceptions influence interpersonal relations and the work group atmosphere. For instance, research shows that an environment low in trust is more prone to heightened task conflict which further enables relationship conflict (Simons & Peterson, 2000; Peterson & Behfar, 2003). As a consequence of low trust and low team identification, individuals may be more prone to shifting loyalties towards another team, or even towards another organization and increase the turnover numbers.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The experimental setup presents both the advantage of the controlled environment and the limitation of the self-report dependent variables. Embedded within the laboratory setup is the high control over the outcomes that grants the possibility of asserting causal inferences between work group diversity, power salience and (1) interpersonal attitudes and (2) behavioral intentions. Inherently, I addressed self-reported perceptions and anticipatory intentions and not actual behavior. However, as stated above, there is abundant evidence that one’s intentions often, in fact, are the cognitive antecedents of one’s actual actions (Conner & Abrahams, 2001). Nevertheless, I acknowledge that it would be worthwhile to replicate my findings in a field setting in which existing teams are investigated.
Within a field study one interesting avenue for further research could be to investigate the interaction effect of power and different types of diversity on perceived performance and actual performance. In my experimental set up, I deliberately used trivial categories (i.e., core /
Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). However, in an organizational setup, work group diversity categorization processes can be engendered by extant surface-level and deep-level diversity. There is a large body of research showing that deep-level diversity (i.e., in terms of informational and functional background differences) tend to have less severe consequences for the functioning of work groups than surface-level diversity (i.e., categorical differences) (Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin, & Peyronnin, 1991; Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey; 2002). Within this context, future field studies could identify whether the influence exerted by power can be differentiated into these two broad categories of diversity. Namely, since high power yields stereotyping tendencies (Fiske, 1993; Guinote & Phillips, 2010); it is likely that surface-level diversity along with the contingent categorization processes might be strengthen by the influence of power. However, recent research depicts the powerful as having an instrumental attention orientated towards achieving organizational goals (Overbeck & Park, 2006). Thus, deep-level diversity might be encouraged and even prosper under the goal orientated guidance of the powerful.
ignoring other’s personal influence, to control one’s own outcomes and to be personally
independent (Galinsky, Magge, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist; 2008; Lammers et at., 2009). Following the logic that social power entails a sense of responsibility and consideration when dealing with others (Lammers et al., 2009), this form of power may especially alleviate the negative responses of team members towards diversity in their group. By contrast, personal power increases stereotyping and self-categorization processes (Lammers et al., 2009). From this it can be inferred that personal power may engender categorization processes when confronted with work group diversity. This brings a nuanced brush to the portrait of the power holders that I drew so far.
Importantly however, one final new research direction could examine moderating factors of the findings I observed. Although power influences emotion, cognition and affect in a
predictable manner (Galinsky, Rus, & Lammers, 2010), there may still be individual differences that guide their behavior. For instance, a general perception of the benefits or hindrances that work group diversity yields can set the tone of further perceptions and interactions. Research by Van Dick and colleagues (2008) establish the concept of diversity beliefs and their moderating role. Defined as the extent to which individuals believe there is value in diversity, diversity beliefs were shown to moderate the relationship between ethnic diversity and group
is plausible that when individuals focus on their personal growth yet hold pro-diversity beliefs that they could also reap the benefits it brings. By simply paying attention to diverse opinions and attitudes, the stereotyping tendencies (Lammers et al., 2009) might be buffered, leaving room for observing and benefiting from a larger pool of resources.
CONCLUSION
cooperative work environments in the diverse work groups that they manage, so that ultimately, the benefits of diversity can be capitalized on.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362-1377.
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A.D., (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511-536.
Applebaum, E., & Batt, R. (1994). The new American workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Bridges,W. (1994). Jobshift: How to prosper in a workplace without jobs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E.T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 86(1), 35-66.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 273-287.
Chattopadhyay, P., Finn, C., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2010). Affective responses to professional dissimilarity: a matter of status. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (4), 808-826.
Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone, (Eds.), European review of social psychology, 1, 263– 292. New York: Wiley.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: ingroup identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617–26.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J.P. (1999). Self- categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371- 389.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S.A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459-478.
Ellemers, N., Scheepers, D., & Popa, A.M. (2010). Something to gain or something to lose? Affirmative action and regulatory focus emotions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13 (2), 201-213.
Fast, N., Gruendfeld, D., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A.D. (2008). Illusory control: the generative behind power’s fast-reaching effects. Psychological Sciences. 20, 502-508.
Ferrin, D.L., Kim, P.H., Cooper, C.D., & Dirks, K.T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: the effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 893-908.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708-724.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H, & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H, Whitson, J., & Liljenquist, K. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450-1466.
Guinote, A., & Phillips, A. (2010). Power can increase stereotyping: Evidence from managers and subordinates in the hotel industry. Social Psychology, 41(1), 3-9.
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. Academy of Management, 45, 1029-1045.
Hertel, G., & Kerr, N.L. (2001). Priming in-group favoritism: The impact of normative scripts in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 316-324. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Values from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.
Ilgen, D. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54, 129–139.
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Interpersonal dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotion, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 675-689.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1222–1233.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). Differentiating social and personal power: Opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies. Psychological Science, 20, 1543-1548.
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, 231-255.
Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402– 433.
Murnighan, J.C., & Colon, D.E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of British string quartets. Journal of Administrative Sciences, 36, 165-186.
O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, social integration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.
243.
Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K., & Xin, K. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of workgroup diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
Peterson, R.S., & Behfar, K.J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 102-112.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, T., & Novak, R. (2005). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 747-763.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2006). What can you expect? The influence of gender diversity in dyads on work goal expectancies and subsequent work commitment. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 577-588.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2007). The role of expectancies in accepting task-related diversity: Do disappointment and lack of commitment stem from actual differences or violated expectations? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 842-854.
Journal, 42, 662-673.
Simons, T., & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 102– 111. Soutar, S. (2004). Beyond the rainbow. Association Management, 56, 26-33.
Swann, W. B., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, B. R. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62: 392-401.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The psychological nature of intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology and intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Taylor, D.M., & Doria, J.R. (1981). Self-serving and group-serving bias in attribution. Journal of
Social Psychology, 113, 201–11.
Turner, J. (1985). Social categorization and the self concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77–121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. & Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Van Dijke, M., & Poppe, M. (2006). Striving for personal power as a basis for social power dynamics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 537–556.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and OCB: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 715 727.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M.C. (2007). Work group diversity. The Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541.
Wagner, G.W., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 74-92.
Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1998). The complexity of diversity: A review of forty years of research. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 21, 77– 140. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Yang, Y. (2005). Developing Cultural Diversity Advantage: The Impact of Diversity Management Structures. Academy of Management Best Papers, 65, H1 –H6.
APPENDIX Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of dependent variables
Diversity Conditions
Power Condition
M SD M SD
Approach emotions Diverse 5.57 .17 4.67 .16
Homogeneous 5.23 .15 5.15 .18
Helping Intentions Diverse 6.16 .18 5.47 .16
Homogeneous 5.47 .16 5.60 .19 Evaluation of Collaboration Diverse 5.15 .19 4.35 .17 Homogeneous 4.82 .17 5.11 .19 Trust Diverse 5.6 .16 4.31 .15 Homogeneous 5.2 .14 5.07 .17
Team Identification Diverse 5.48 .18 4.38 .16
Homogeneous 5.24 .16 5.31 .19
Figure 2. Diversity Manipulation, Dot estimation task, Example 2
Figure 3 Diagram of heterogeneous team
