Work Group Diversity and Team Performance:
The Importance of Task Interdependence
by
Sang Cheon An
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
This questionnaire study among 75 employees from 23 work teams in the Netherlands examined the relationship between task-oriented diversity (educational background diversity and functional background diversity) and team performance and moderating effect of task interdependence on that relationship. It was expected that educational and functional background diversity are positively related to team performance respectively, and the positive relationships would be intensified when the levels of task interdependence are high. Contrary to the expectation, however, results indicate the negative directions of educational and functional background diversity on team performance and the tendencies for high levels of task interdependence to intensify the negative relationships between educational/functional background diversity and team performance.
Introduction
Over the years work groups in companies have become more diverse, and employers are increasingly committing to diversity management programs which promote recognition and respect for the individual differences found among a group of employees. Moreover, not only demographic differences between people (e.g., in terms of gender, age, and ethnicity), but also differences in functional or educational background are incorporated in work group compositions, such as in cross-functional project teams (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). In dealing with these kinds of diversity, however, some work groups are more effective whereas others are causing unexpected results. What makes this difference?
There has been a lot of research that states diversity can influence work group performance, although the nature of this influence seems to be “a double-edged sword, increasing the opportunity for creativity as well as the likelihood that group members will be dissatisfied and fail to identify with the group” (Millikens & Martin, 1996: 403). On the one hand, more diverse work groups have been found to derive benefits from a greater range of perspectives to enhance problem solving and decision making than less diverse groups (e.g., Hoffman & Maier, 1961; McLeod & Lobel, 1992; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993). On the other hand, the great amount of diversity has been found to lead to challenges in integration (e.g., O'Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989) and the higher level of dissatisfaction and turnover (e.g., Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin, & Peyronnin, 1991; Wagner, Pfeffer, & O'Reilly, 1984)
to increase team performance by increasing work group diversity sometimes causes serious managerial errors, it is important to investigate moderating values which codetermine the positive relationship between work group diversity and team performance. Although there could be many possible moderators, this study focuses on task interdependence in that in diverse work groups the nature of interpersonal interactions has been found to determine group member performance and group effectiveness (Timmerman, 2000). Because the amounts of interaction among members can influence the relationships between diversity and emotional conflict (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999), managing work group diversity effectively requires an understanding of the nature of the task which may determine the extent to which team members interact with and rely on each other. Therefore, the purpose of this study is not only to examine the direct influence of work group diversity on team performance, but also to extend current research by testing a proposed moderator of group diversity effects: task interdependence.
Work Group Diversity
including non-salient attributes like values (Berscheid, 1985). The third is information and decision-making theory, in which work group diversity may be associated with distribution of information, knowledge and expertise in teams (van Knippenberg, & Schippers, 2007). These theories yield different and sometimes contradictory hypotheses, giving an explanation of the mixed effects of diversity on group processes and performance. Social categorization and similarity-attraction theory predict negative effects, such as less productivity, reduced satisfaction and commitment, and increased turnover because of the conflict and lack of cooperation among group members (Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003). However, from an information and decision-making view, positive effects of diversity are expected, mainly because different skills, information, and views of the world may contribute to more creativity and increased performance when they are brought together (Timmerman, 2000).
have been found at various organization levels for common patterns. In this sense, this study focuses on the task-oriented aspects of diversity, especially educational and functional background in relation to performance. Although there are some studies which found that task-oriented diversity, such as educational and functional background diversity, had no positive effect on innovation and team performance (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Bantel & Jackson 1989; Keller, 2001; Pelled et al., 1999), it has been pointed out that diversity associated with skill-based and informational difference seems to have some positive outcomes (e.g., Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2002; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004; Korn, Milliken, & Lant, 1992; Smith, Smith, Olian, Sims, O'Bannon, & Scully, 1994). In the following part, the two hypotheses, describing these positive relationships between educational/functional background diversity and team performance, are developed.
firm‟s returns on assets in the furniture industry. One main reason may be that this kind of diversity increases the likelihood of creative and innovative solutions to problems, bringing a greater variety of perspectives and information from a variety of functional areas within the organization (Millikens & Martin, 1996). Also, external communications that facilitate performance may be more frequent and of higher quality when the work group is functionally diverse (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). In this sense, the positive effect of educational and functional background diversity on team performance is expected respectively.
Hypothesis 1a. Educational background diversity of work teams is positively related to team performance.
Hypothesis 1b. Functional background diversity of work teams is positively related to team performance.
Task Interdependence
integrating style to resolve conflicts collaboratively (Lam & Chin, 2004). It has also been found that interdependence leads to increased communication (Johnson, 1973), information sharing (Crawford & Haaland, 1972), and the level of motivation (Hirst, 1988).
In spite of this continuing debate between the conflict and the collaboration of interaction, it has been argued by researchers that task interdependence may influence group members‟ expectations of help (Spilerman, 1971), norms of cooperation (Shaw, 1981), and in turn, group effectiveness (Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993). When task interdependence is high, individual members tend to have mutual liking and positive attitudes toward others to acquire assistance, which in turn facilitate the development of solidarity among group members (Chen, Tang, & Wang, 2009). Moreover, in such a context of frequent interactions, team members typically communicate more often for needed information and support each other regularly to complete a team-related task. Thus, task interdependence has a positive effect on the degree of communication among team members and the level of collective planning for task integration, which a team‟s performance may depend on (Gundlach, Zivnuska, & Stoner, 2006). In this sense, the positive effect of task interdependence on team performance is expected.
The Importance ofTask Interdependence
as a Moderator
or mitigating the negative effect of diversity (Timmerman, 2000). For example, Jehn and colleagues (1999) demonstrated that demographic diversity was positively related to satisfaction and commitment with the high level of task interdependence. Pettigrew (1998) pointed out that task interdependence may facilitate intergroup contact conducive to reducing categorization-based processes in teams, which is the negative aspect of diversity.
According to the information and decision-making perspective, the positive effects of task-oriented diversity should be more likely on tasks with high interdependence (e.g. Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000; Jehn et al., 1999). Groups with high task-oriented diversity are likely to possess a broader range of task-relevant information and members with different perspectives, which are a larger pool of resources for dealing with non-routine problem (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Especially, with high task interdependence, this task-oriented diversity may “set the stage for more creative and innovative group performance because the need to integrate diverse information and reconcile diverse perspectives may stimulate thinking that is more creative and prevent groups from moving to premature consensus on issues that need careful consideration” (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007: 518). In support of this proposition, Jehn et al. (1999) reported that informational diversity is more likely to increase workgroup performance when tasks are complex rather than routine, and Bowers et al.‟s (2000) meta-analysis found that diversity was more positively related to group performance in high difficulty tasks, but it was negatively related in low difficulty tasks.
intensifying intergroup contact which can facilitate positive cognitive outcomes. In other words, under the circumstance when task interdependence as a motivational mechanism moderates the relationship between task-oriented diversity and team performance, task-oriented diversity can lead to better team performance. In this sense, the two hypotheses, expecting that educational and functional background diversity would predict higher team performance when there are high levels of task interdependence, are proposed.
Hypothesis 2a. Task interdependence moderates the relationship between educational background diversity and team performance. The positive effect of educational background diversity on team performance is intensified when task interdependence is high.
Hypothesis 2a. Task interdependence moderates the relationship between functional background diversity and team performance. The positive effect of functional background diversity on team performance is intensified when task interdependence is high.
Figure 1 Hypothesized Structural Model
Task-oriented Diversity - Educational Background Diversity - Functional Background Diversity
Methods
Respondents and Procedure
This study was conducted in collaboration with 23 teams, which ranged in size from 3 to 29 people, in 14 organizations in the Netherlands. A total of 122 participants were invited to take part in the survey and 75 of them took part and completed the questionnaires, which makes a response rate of 61%. Their mean age was 41.9 years old (SD = 9.98), and 70.8% of them were male. Education levels attained varied considerably, as follows: less than MBO (12%), MBO (28%), HBO (37.3%), WO (14.7%), and no response (8%).
The information for the study was basically gathered through web-based questionnaires. We contacted work teams in the Netherlands, asking for their cooperation. If they agreed to participate, individual team members were sent e-mails in which we explained the nature of the study and asked them to fill out the web-based questionnaires. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was guaranteed.
Measurement Instruments
Task-oriented diversity. This study focuses on the educational and functional background
this study, therefore, single-item measures were used to measure the subjective diversity which team members perceived about educational background and functional background of their team at the individual level. In the same way done by van Dick and colleagues (2008), respondents were asked to indicate to what extent their team members are diverse with regards to educational background and functional background. Items were scored on five-point Likert scales ranging from „Not at all diverse‟ (1) to „Very diverse‟ (5).
Task Interdependence. Task interdependence was measured at the individual level by
three Likert type items adopted from the questionnaire that Van der Vegt, van de Vliert, and Oosterhof (2003) developed. They were: “I have a one-person job; I rarely have to check or work with others” (reversed), “I have to work closely with my colleagues to do my work properly,” and “In order to complete our work, my colleagues and I have to exchange information and advice.” Items were scored on five-point Likert type scales ranging from „Totally disagree‟ (1) to „Totally agree‟ (5). The Cronbach‟s alpha of this scale was .79.
Team performance. Team performance was assessed at the individual level by five items
adapted from Robey, Smith, and Vijayasarathy‟s (1993) instrument. Respondents were asked to score their team on operating efficiently, meeting the schedule, producing products with appropriate quantity and quality, and interacting effectively with people inside and outside the team, with the scale ranging from „Totally disagree‟ (1) to „Totally agree‟ (5). The Cronbach‟s alpha of this scale was .79.
Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979), and women were found to be more likely to be absent and to leave than men (Cummings, Zhou, & Oldham, 1993). In addition, some cognitive abilities, such as learning ability, reasoning, and memory seem to diminish with age (Burke and Light, 1981).
Statistical Analyses
Factor Analyses
Two sets of factor analyses were conducted to examine the distinctiveness of the scales for the elaboration of educational/functional background diversity, task interdependence and team performance. Table 1 and Table 2 in the Appendix 1 present rotated component matrix for each of the independent variables (educational background diversity and functional background diversity) respectively. An inspection of the tables reveals that each item shows high primary loadings on the intended factor, and lower loadings on the other factors, except for the fifth item for team performance in Table 1, which presents slightly higher loading on the intended factor than the third factor. In addition, the results of the KMO and Bartlett's tests indicated that in the case of educational background diversity the KMO value is .71 and Bartlett's statistic is highly significant (Χ2 = 218.52, df = 36, p < .001) and in the case of functional background diversity
the KMO value is .70 and Bartlett's statistic is also highly significant (Χ2 = 216.00, df = 36, p < .001). In each case, the KMO measure of sampling adequacy falls into the range of being
Hierarchical Regression Analyses
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables in the model. Although educational background diversity was positively and significantly correlated with functional background diversity (r = .57), the main relationships were in the unexpected direction. Functional background diversity and task interdependence appeared to be unrelated to team performance, whereas educational background diversity was weakly and negatively related to team performance (r = -.27).
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
Hypotheses Testing
Educational Background Diversity
Table 2 provides the results of the analysis. As one can see in the table, the control variables had no significant relationship with team performance (∆R 2 = .02, ∆F = .77, ns). The
main effects explained a significant amount of variance in team performance, namely 9% (∆R 2
= .09, F = 3.42, p < .05). The interaction term added in the third step explained some additional
amount of variance in team performance, but it is not significant (∆R 2 = .03, ∆F = 2.51, ns).
Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Educational Background Diversity
Variable R2 △R2 △F b T
Step 1 (control variables) .02 .02 .77
Age -.01 -1.24
Gender -.02 -.13
Step 2 (main effects) .11 .09 3.42*
Educational Background
Diversity (EBD) -.19* -2.43
Task Interdependence (TI) .07 .91
Step 3 (interaction effect) .14 .03 2.51
EBD X TI -.13 -1.59
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
background diversity and team performance, was not supported (b = -.13, t = -1.59, ns). The positive effect of task interdependence on team performance was not confirmed (b = .07, t
= .91, , ns)
Functional Background Diversity
Table 3 provides the results of another analysis. Like the previous one, the control variables had no significant relationship with team performance (∆R 2 = .02, ∆F = .62, ns).
Whereas the main effects of functional background and task interdependence on team performance were not significant (∆R 2 = .04, ∆F = 1.62, ns), the interaction term explained a
significant amount of variance in team performance, namely 11% (∆R 2 = .11, F = 8.60, p < .01).
Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Functional Background Diversity
Variable R2 △R2 △F b t
Step 1 (control variables) .02 .02 .62
Age -.01 -.97
Gender .06 .34
Step 2 (main effects) .06 .04 1.62
Functional Background
Diversity (FBD) -.10 -1.31
Task Interdependence (TI) .10 1.22
Step 3 (interaction effect) .17 .11 8.60**
FBD X TI -.19** -2.93
performance, was not supported (b = -.10, t = -1.31, ns). The positive effect of task interdependence on team performance was not confirmed (b = .10, t = 1.22 , ns). The moderating effect of task interdependence on the relationship between functional background diversity and team performance was supported (b = -.19, t = -2.93, p < .01). However, contrary to the prediction of Hypothesis 2b, the negative effect of functional background diversity on team performance is intensified when task interdependence is high.
Figure 2 Interaction of Functional Background Diversity and Task Interdependence on Team Performance
The interaction between functional background diversity and task interdependence on team performance is presented graphically in Figure 2. The simple slopes were plotted by using
3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 Low High
Functional Background Diversity
T eam P er for m an ce
Task Interdependence High
for task interdependence. As shown in Figure 2, the negative relationship between functional background diversity and team performance was most marked when task interdependence was high. Table 4 provides the results of simple slope analysis. The results of t-test for whether a simple slope differs from zero confirm the negative regression of team performance on functional background diversity with high level of task interdependence (b = -.31, t = -3.27, p
< .001). However, the negative regression of team performance on functional background
diversity with medium level of task interdependence (b = -.12, t = -1.70, ns) and the positive regression of team performance on functional background diversity with low level of task interdependence (b = .07, t = .75, ns) were not significantly different from 0.
Table 4 Simple Slope Analysis for Functional Background Diversity
Task Interdependence b s t
Low Level .07 .10 .75
Medium level -.12 .07 -1.70
High Level -.31 .10 -3.27***
Discussion
Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the direct effects of educational and functional background diversity on team performance and the moderating effects of task interdependence on the relationships between educational/functional background diversity and team performance. Consistent with previous research (e.g. Kearney et al., 2009; Korn et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1994), the positive effects of educational and functional background diversity on team performance were expected. After reviewing some research (e.g. Bowers et al., 2000; Jehn et al., 1999; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007), educational and functional background diversity were expected to predict higher team performance respectively when there were high levels of task interdependence.
Unlike the expectation, however, the research showed quite puzzling results. First of all, the direct effects of educational and functional background diversity on team performance presented both negative directions. Contrary to the expectation, a negative relationship between educational background diversity and team performance was found. Although it was not confirmed by this study, the result showed that a negative relationship between functional background diversity and team performance is statistically feasible, rather than a positive one.
turnover in team. Ancona and Caldwell (1992) indicated that functional diversity had a negative direct effect on innovation and team performance. On the premise that diversity is a double-edged sword, the final direction of the effect of certain diversity on team performance depends on the strength of beneficial effect of the diversity which is predicted by the information and decision-making theory and dysfunctional effect which is explained by the social categorization theory and the similarity-attraction theory. Ancona and Caldwell (1992: 321) pointed out that “overall the effect of diversity on performance is negative, even though some aspects of group work are enhanced”.
if task-oriented diversity may be positively related to long-term performance due to a great range of perspectives it provides, it may be negatively related to short-term performance because of the efficiency losses from the low levels of cohesion and satisfaction based on diverse backgrounds in the short run (Murray, 1989). Therefore, for future research it is recommended to distinguish between short-term and long-term performance as dependent variables in order to clarify the effects of diversity on team performance in process of time. According to these perspectives, the negative directions of educational and functional background diversity on team performance are not unexpected.
Concerning the moderating effects, the results showed tendencies for high levels of task interdependence to intensify the negative relationships between educational/functional background diversity and team performance. The moderating effect of task interdependence on the relationship between functional background diversity and team performance was supported, but contrary to the prediction, the results showed that the negative effect of functional background diversity on team performance is intensified when task interdependence is high. The moderating effect of task interdependence on the relationship between educational background diversity and team performance was not confirmed by this study, but the result showed that there is also an inclination for high levels of task interdependence to intensify the negative relationship between educational background diversity and team performance.
Pelled and his colleagues (1999) suggested that high amounts of interaction among team members should intensify the relationships between diversity and emotional conflict while less interaction should decrease the salience and influence of demographic diversity. Schmidt and Kochan (1972) also pointed out that intragroup conflict is intensified when interdependence exists among parties with different goals. In diverse work groups, the nature of interpersonal interactions has been found to determine group member performance and group effectiveness (Timmerman, 2000). In groups with low levels of task interdependence there is little need for interactions among members, so even group members with diverse backgrounds have only minimal room for conflict based on those backgrounds (Pelled et al., 1999). When the levels of task interdependence are high, however, group members have much need to exchange opinions or challenge each other. Hence, if members have diverse backgrounds, there is much room for conflict from their opposing opinions and preferences, which diminishes team performance (Pelled et al., 1999). In this sense, high levels of task interdependence intensify the negative relationships between diversity and team performance.
interdependence may undergo cooperation and coordination problems, which leads to decreased team performance (Van der Vegt, et al., 2000). When high levels of task interdependence is combined with high levels of goal interdependence, group members with diverse background are receptive to information and suggestions from others and the interactions among them are facilitative and cooperative, resulting in increased team performance. However, if group members experience high levels of task interdependence combined with low levels of goal interdependence, they are likely to develop negative attitudes to the others and unwillingness to accept information, suggestions, and ideas provided by other members (van Der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). In such circumstances, therefore, diversity in perspectives and opinions may lead to cooperation problems, distrust, stereotyping and decreased identification among team members, thereby leading to decreased team performance (van Der Vegt & Janssen, 2001). In this sense, the negative relationship between diversity and team performance can be intensified with high levels of task interdependence. According to these perspectives, the unexpected results about the moderating effects of this study are explained.
Implications
and reduce the negative effects of the diversity. For example, the greater negotiation skills may be necessary and the resolutions for conflict and social integration problem should be devised as well (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). In addition, diverse teams may need to be evaluated in the long term, unlike homogeneous teams, because diversity may foster innovation and team performance, not in the short term, but in the long run (Ancona 1990).
In spite of the expectation that educational and functional background diversity would predict higher team performance with high levels of task interdependence, the tendencies for high levels of task interdependence to intensify the negative relationships between educational/ functional background diversity and team performance was found. These findings suggest that even if work groups increase the positive effects of task-oriented diversity, such as educational and functional background, “performance benefits should be expected only to the extent that work group members successfully manage the difficulties of interacting effectively with dissimilar others” (Jehn et al., 1999: 142). Therefore, if the levels of task interdependence are high, managers should explore a way to deal with intragroup conflict in order to mitigate negative moderating effect of task interdependence.
Limitations and Future Research
and applicability. Secondly, this study is cross-sectional, so no causal inferences can be drawn. Longitudinal research with large samples may be helpful in identifying causal relationships between variables. Lastly, as the variable measures are self-reported based on team members‟ response, the possibility of common method variance inflating correlations must be acknowledged (c.f., Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Fiske, 1982). Accordingly, multiple sources for variables including more objective data could reduce the effects of common method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
REFERENCES
Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of
Management Journal, 33(2): 334-355.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell. D. F. 1992. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3: 321-341.
Bantel. K. A., & Jackson, S. E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management journal, 10: 107-124.
Berscheid, E. 1985. Interpersonal attraction. In G, Lindzey and E, Aronson (eds,), Handbook of Social Psychology, 2: 413-484. New York: Random House.
Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams. a meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31: 305-327.
Burke, D. M., & Light, L. L. 1981. Memory and aging: the role of retrieval processes.
Psychological Bulletin, 90: 513-546.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56: 81-105.
Chen, C. V., Tang, Y., & Wang, S. 2009. Interdependence and organizational citizenship behavior: Exploring the mediating effect of group cohesion in multilevel analysis. The Journal of
Psychology, 143(6): 625-640.
Crawford, J. L., & Haaland, G. A. 1972. Predecisional information seeking and subsequent conformity in the social influence process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23: 112-119.
outcomes: Effects on multiple comparison groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. 2005. Team diversity and information use. Academy
of Management Journal, 48: 1107-1123.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. 2002. Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 40: 44-66.
Fiske, D. W. 1982. Convergent-discriminant validation in measurements and research strategies, In D. Brinbirg & L. Kidder (Eds.), Forms of Validity in Research: 77-92, California: Jossey Bass.
Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. 1998. Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational &
Psychological Measurement, 58(6): 898-915
Gundlach, M., Zivnuska, S., & Stoner, J. 2006. Understanding the relationship between individualism-collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory and the social relations model. Human Relations, 59: 1603-1632.
Hirst, M. K. 1988. Intrinsic motivation as influenced by task interdependence and goal setting.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 96-101.
Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. F. 1961. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 62: 401-407
675-689.
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29: 801-830
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. 2004. A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 703-729.
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.
Johnson, D. W. 1973. Communication in conflict situations: A critical review of the research. International Journal of Group Tensions, 3: 46-67
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. 2009. When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members‟ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3): 581-598.
Keller, R. T. 2001. Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 547-555.
Korn, H. J., Milliken, F. J., & Lant, T. K. 1992. Top management team change and
organizational performance: The influence of succession, composition, and context.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV. Lam, P. K., & Chin, K. S. 2004. Projects factors influencing conflict intensity and handling types
in collaborative NPD. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13: 52-62.
McLeod, P. L., & Lobel, S. A. 1992. The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings: 227-231.
Millikens, F. J., & Martin, L. L. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21: 402-433.
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. 1979. Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 493-522.
Murray, A. I. 1989. Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 10: 125-141.
O‟Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. 1989. Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 21-37
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 1-28.
Pettigrew, T. F. 1998. Intergroup contact theory. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.),
Annual review of psychology, 49: 65-85. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-report in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12: 531-544.
Robey, D., Smith, L. A., & Vijayasarathy, L. R. 1993. Perceptions of conflict and success in information systems development projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(1): 123-139.
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. 1993. Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel
Psychology, 36: 577-600.
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. 2003. Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24: 779-802.
Schmidt, S. M., & Kochan, T. 1972. The concept of conflict: Toward conceptual clarity.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 359-370,
Schopler, J. H. 1986. Interorganizational groups: Origins, structure and outcomes. Academy of
Management Review, 12: 702-713.
Shaw, M. E. 1981. Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: Harper. Smith. K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D.. Sims, H. P., O'Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. 1994.
Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 412-438.
Spilerman, S. 1971. Raising academic motivation in lower class adolescents: A convergence of two research traditions. Sociology of Education, 44: 101-108.
Timmerman, T. A. 2000. Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small Group Research, 31(5): 592-606.
van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. 2000. Affective responses to intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26: 633-655.
van Der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. 2001. The joint effects of psychological diversity and interdependence on individual performance. Academy of Management Proceedings &
van Der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. 2003. Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29: 729-751.
van der Vegt, G. S., van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. 2003. Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and identification. The Academy of Management, 46: 715-728.
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(10): 1463-1492.
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
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. 2007. Work group diversity. 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
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. 1997. Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 247-252
Watson, W., Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. 1993. Cultural diversity‟s impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 36: 590-602
Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. 1993. Group goals and group performance. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 32: 307-334.
of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 77-140.
APPENDIX 1 The Results of Factor Analyses
Table 1 Factor Analysis for Educational Background Diversity
Factor
1 2 3
Team Performance
To what extent does your team operate efficiently? ,861 -,059 -,114
To what extent does your team meet the schedule? ,780 -,020 -,110
To what extent does your team produce products with appropriate quantity? ,777 ,168 -,138 To what extent does your team produce products with appropriate quality? ,722 ,074 ,033 To what extent does your team interact effectively with people inside and
outside the team? ,492 ,109 -,474
Task Interdependence
I have to work closely with my colleagues to do my work properly. -,020 ,903 -,049 I have a one-person job; I rarely have to check or work with others. * -,011 ,860 -,190 In order to complete our work, my colleagues and I have to exchange
information and advice. ,256 ,762 ,343
Educational Background Diversity
How divers do you think your team members are with regards to educational
background? -,111 ,013 ,891
* reversed item
Table 2 Factor Analysis for Functional Background Diversity
Factor
1 2 3
Team Performance
To what extent does your team operate efficiently? ,875 -,049 -,005
To what extent does your team meet the schedule? ,802 -,014 ,016
To what extent does your team produce products with appropriate quantity? ,754 ,179 -,266 To what extent does your team produce products with appropriate quality? ,638 ,087 ,223 To what extent does your team interact effectively with people inside and
outside the team? ,634 ,097 -,396
Task Interdependence
In order to complete our work, my colleagues and I have to exchange
information and advice. ,196 ,781 ,213
Functional Background Diversity
How divers do you think your team members are with regards to functional
background? -,033 ,025 ,914
