The effects of interpersonal similarity and hierarchical position on influence and preference in dyads

position on influence and preference in dyads

Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

August 2013

Abstract (51)

This study investigated the relationship between diversity and the processes of preference. It also examined the relationship between diversity and power on influence. Human resource management students (N=235) were randomly assigned to a 2 (Similarity: Similar vs. Dissimilar) by 3 (Social Power: Powerful vs. Powerless vs. Same) between-subjects design. None of the hypotheses were confirmed; people did not have a

1. Introduction

“I've witnessed many times how the courage of one person with a very different perspective can keep the flame of critical thought burning brightly.”

- Sharon Allen, chairman of the board at Deloitte LLP.

While employee diversity has become a fact of organizational life, the findings and theories on workgroup diversity are inconclusive; diversity is associated with both positive and negative outcomes. Some believe diversity to contribute to a more creative environment where impressive business ideas are developed (Milliken & Martins, 1996), whereas others consider diversity the main reason for team failure (Hackman, 1998; Mannix & Neale, 2005). In Europe, the process of European integration and the enlargement of the European Union have led to increasing diversity. Especially for the European business world,

transnational mobility has been the main reason for the current high levels of diversity in the workplace (European commission, 2005). Several theoretical frameworks have been

developed and used to evaluate and explain the positive and negative processes and results derived from diverse teams. The information/decision-making perspective claims that diversity among people enhances decision-making quality trough the variety of viewpoints brought together (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). In line with this, De Dreu, Homan & Van Knippenberg (2004) discuss the potential advantage of diversity is reflected in the extended pool of task-related information and expertise people might have when cooperating with dissimilar others in comparison with people that cooperate with similar others. Diversity theorist Jackson (1992) argues that diversity of backgrounds and values are necessary to make things happen. Creativity theorists (e.g, Amabile, 1994; Oldham and Cummings, 1998) have also shed positive light on the impact of diversity in organizations. Diversity among

employees seems to be the norm nowadays, but on the other hand, theories of selection and socialization promote similarity in views and backgrounds as the foundation for an effective work environment (Chatman, 1991; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Likewise, Byrne’s (1961)

similarity/attraction paradigm postulates that similarities among people leads to social

attraction. To add, similarity among people leads to higher levels of agreement (van Dick, 2008) and superior performance (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).

After thoroughly reviewing the existing literature on diversity in organizational settings it becomes clear that diversity among employees is associated with both positive and negative outcomes. In most literature, diversity leads to negative effects on effective work environments, as it is believed to inhibit processes of successful cooperation between people. On the other hand diversity is proposed to have a positive effect; the variety of viewpoints and perspectives will lead to enhanced decision-making. To gain better understanding of the variety in effects caused by diversity, two questions need to be emphasized: ‘Do dissimilar people influence each other?’ and ‘Do dissimilar people want to work or cooperate with each other?’ – as the answers to this question are not necessarily compatible.

This research will therefore specifically focus on two constructs: the process of

influence and one’s preference for another. By examining what effect diversity among people has on their preference to work together and on how the process of influence takes place, more can be said about how and when diversity among people in organizational settings can lead to positive results.

The processes underlying the interaction between similar or dissimilar people are key when drawing conclusions concerning the either positive or negative results of diversity in a dyad. Therefore, more focus should be on what processes will activate the availability of variety in information and viewpoints, instead of assuming differences in viewpoints and information as being key to the success or failure of organizational diversity. Researchers and business managers tend to apply a result-oriented focus with regard to the impact of diversity, conversely less attention has been paid to the different underlying constructs that are affected by diversity, such as preference and influence. Also, in current research dissimilarity among people in organizational settings is either labeled as positive or negative. But dissimilarity could impact the underlying constructs in different ways, which might lead to both positive and negative consequences at the same time. By investigating the relationship between interpersonal dissimilarity and the process of influence and preference, more can be said about why and how dissimilarity will affect organizational settings.

2. Theory 2.1 Forms of Diversity

In most of the diversity models or frameworks described in the previous section, “diversity” refers to differences in values, beliefs and ways of thinking, so called deep level diversity. Surface level diversity is another form, which includes demographic factors such as gender and race. However this form of diversity does not necessarily reflect diversity in values or way of thinking. Deep level diversity, also described as cognitive diversity, is

believed to have a greater impact on knowledge and decision-making processes in comparison with surface level diversity (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999). Therefore, in this thesis, deep level or cognitive diversity is meant when referring to “diversity”.

2.2 Preference in a Dyad

people’s thinking cause an uncomfortable feeling, which leads to avoidance of the different other. When people have the opportunity to chose with whom they would like to cooperate, people tend to show favoritism towards similar others and depreciation towards dissimilar others (Hewstone, Rubin & Willis 2002). Because of these findings, it is assumed that people would prefer to work with a similar, rather than a dissimilar other.

This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: People are more likely to prefer to work with a similar other than a dissimilar other.

2.3 The Effects of Diversity on Influence in a Dyad

People’s feelings of the correctness of their own judgments are enhanced when others agree. According to Kelley (1976), inaccurate judgments may arise when an agreement is reached among similar others, as they may share biasing characteristics. However, if

dissimilar others agree, there is a correction for this bias. This means that it is less likely that dissimilar others will engage in judgment processes that produce errors. Likewise, Goethals and Nelson (1973) draw the conclusion that the agreement of dissimilar others can be the most impressive and influential to the people in the dyad. People have more confidence about their judgment when they receive support for their judgment from dissimilar others.

Judgmental agreement from dissimilar others not only enhances feelings of confidence, but is also more influential on one’s own opinion. Goethals (1972) states that if people have the same information about a certain topic, the agreement of dissimilar others is at least as influential or even more influential than the agreement of similar others. This literature offers strong evidence that people are more influenced by dissimilar others in situations where they agree, but would this be different when there is judgmental disagreement between similar or dissimilar others? There is some existing evidence that points to the answer.

Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini and Nora (2001) found that college students that regularly interacted with peers that were different from them in terms of values and interests, were more open to these different perspectives from dissimilar others and in addition, were more willing to criticize their own beliefs, in comparison with students that did not interact with dissimilar peers. Other research revealed that students who were engaged in classroom diversity reported higher progress in their ability to solve problems in comparison to students that did not engage in classroom diversity (Hurtado, 2001).

“Differences in knowledge bases and perspectives that members bring to the group” is the definition of informational diversity (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). According to Van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan (2004), informational diversity has a positive effect on the exchange of information and perspectives among people. De Dreu (2008) states that this process of discussing information leads to a more extensive consideration of information, which will eventually bring people more confidence in their work-related results (Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007). Following this logic, it is assumed that the critical thinking enabled by diversity in perspectives triggers people in their decision-making process. Also, when individuals are held responsible for their decision-making process, such as in work related situations, individuals are eager to engage in deep information processing to understand a decision problem from different perspectives and to develop accuracy (De Dreu, 2008). Therefore, it is proposed that people are more influenced by people with different perspectives that trigger this need to engage in deep information processing. When people perceive ‘the other’ in interpersonal relations as different, feelings of

competitiveness get triggered and sometimes even discriminatory cognitions arise (Clayton & Opotow, 2003). This suggests that situations in which people experience

competiveness will give rise to critical self-reflection and will stimulate a careful examination of the different ideas and perspectives of others.

Taking into account these findings, it is reasonable to assume that people in a dyad with someone dissimilar are triggered to think critically and are more open and influenced by the ideas of different others, leading to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2. Compared to similar others, people are more likely to be influenced by dissimilar others.

2.4 Power as a Moderator of Diversity on Similarity and Influence.

Organizational settings consist of formal and informal hierarchies; these hierarchical structures motivate employees to increase their own hierarchical position at work

(Bugental, 2000). According to Bakan (1966) the employee behavior of getting ahead in the hierarchical structure is closely related to power and status.1 Employees high in the                                                                                                                

1

hierarchical structure, and therefore greater in power, have more influence in an

organization than employees low in power (Chiaburu & Carpenter, 2013). The construct of power is approached in many different ways, but most definitions concerning power have in common that powerful people have the ability to control and influence the decisions of powerless people (Lammers, Gordijn, Otten, 2008). Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003) define power as an individual’s capacity to influence others by providing or withholding social or material resources. In the case of a negotiation, people with low power are more influenced by others in comparison to people that are high in power (Van Kleef, De Dreu, Pietroni, & Manstead, 2006).

As described above, when people perceive others in interpersonal relations as different, feelings of competiveness arise, which gives rise to critical self-reflection and stimulates people to be more critical of the ideas and perspectives of dissimilar others

(Clayton & Opotow, 2003). However, powerful people will be less likely to feel

competiveness toward people with less power and thus they are less likely to examine the ideas and perspectives of their subordinates.

powerful people form less complex interpersonal impressions than powerless people. According to Davis, Conklin, Smith and Luce, (1996) perspective taking is associated with increased similarity between the self and the other. In general, for low power people that are similar to their supervisors, it will be easier to enhance this similarity between their selves and their supervisor than for dissimilar subordinates. It follows that

supervisors will be more likely to take the perspective of, and therefore to get influenced, by a similar subordinate. Support for the argument that subordinates are likely to adapt their self to become more similar to their supervisor comes from Kipnis (1972). Kipnis (1972) states that power is associated with a tendency to treat others as a tool to

accomplish one’s own goals, which is fed by powerless people who have the tendency to see their selves as a means to meet the needs of others (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). It is assumed that in organizational settings, subordinates will try to see the world from the perspective of their supervisor. Once a subordinate has determined what values and beliefs their supervisor has, he or she can consider actions that would contribute to and be valued from their supervisor’s perspective. Dissimilar subordinates will have to accommodate their own beliefs and perceptions in order to contribute and influence their boss, whereas similar subordinates with the same values and beliefs do not have to adapt their self and will be much more effective in contributing and influencing their boss. A supervisor will see his own beliefs and perspectives as superior and perspectives from dissimilar subordinates as negligible. Indirect support for this comes from Tepper, Moss and Duffy (2011), who found that supervisors allocate, on average, lower

performance evaluation to subordinates that are dissimilar in comparison with

subordinates that are similar. They see dissimilar subordinates as lower performers and, therefore, as a potential harm for their own performance. In line with this, Opotow (1990) found a positive relation between abusive supervision and perceived deep level

dissimilarity. Relationships between dissimilar people that also include differences in prestige or power lead to suppression of voice and reduced quality of communication and interpersonal undermining (Harrison & Klein, 2007). These negative effects arising from dissimilarity in combination with power differences makes the assumption that

supervisors have a high reluctance to get influenced by dissimilar subordinates extremely plausible. This leads to the following hypothesis:

influence of the powerful to the powerless; the powerless are more influential when similar to the powerful.

3. Method 3.1 Participants

Participants were Business students at the University of Groningen. A total of 436 students participated in the online questionnaire. From these 436 responses, 46 participants did not complete the survey and five participants were removed because they had trouble reading and speaking English. Thus, the final sample size used for the analyses was 385 participants. Fifty four of these participants were men and forty six were women. The mean age of the participants was 21.6-years-old (SD = 2.2), with the youngest participant being 18-years-old and the oldest participant being 35-18-years-old.

3.2 Design

The participants were randomly assigned to a condition in a 2 (Similarity: Similar vs. Dissimilar) x 3 (Social power: Powerful vs. Powerless vs. Same) between-subjects design. Given that the data was originally collected as part of an HR class, power was operationalized as an individual’s hierarchical position relative to the other.

The ‘same level’ conditions were not included in my data analysis, as this thesis particularly focused on the effect that power differences between people can have on the process of influencing and preference to work with another in an organizational setting. Also, for participants it was unclear what it meant to have the same level of social power.2 This resulted in a 2 x 2 between subjects design (N=256) (Table 1).

Table 1: Study Design

2  _{Almost 20% of the participants in the ‘same level’ condition indicated to have more or less status instead of}

having equal status on the manipulation check question: ‘How much more or less status did you have in your role within the organization compared to this other person?’ – Although this study is about power, In the manipulation check it is erroneously labeled as “status”.  

Similar Dissimilar

Supervisor N=63 N=65

Procedure

The students that took part in the survey were informed about the on-line survey during the course ‘Human resource Management,’ in which they all participated. In the first part of the survey participants were asked to conduct the ‘Minopeles Test’ by looking at abstract images (Figure 1). They were then asked to choose an answer from a list of four words that most closely corresponded with what they saw in the image. In fact, this was a meaningless test created for the purpose of the experiment. Participants were told that based on their responses, it could be measured whether they were a ‘XWZ thinker’ or a ‘JTY thinker’. However, the feedback was manipulated and after they finished the test, they all received the same result: ‘Based on your given answers you are a ‘JTY thinker’.

After participants received their result they had to read a scenario in which they were asked to imagine themselves working in the HR department of a big company. Depending on the condition in which a participant was in, they had to imagine being in a discussion about the retirement age with either someone that was relatively higher in organizational hierarchy (supervisor) or lower in organizational hierarchy (subordinate). In addition, they were told that this other person had a similar (‘JTY thinker’) or dissimilar (‘XWZ thinker’) way of thinking. After reading the scenario, participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire about the other person.

The survey specified that participation was anonymous. It was also clearly stated that there were no right or wrong answers and that the categorization of their way of thinking referred to how they saw the world around them and did not have anything to do with the correctness of their answers.

Figure 1: Sample Abstract Image Used for the Manipulation

Dependent Variables

The procedure was followed by a questionnaire. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in the situation described in the scenario and predict how they would feel and act towards the other person with whom they were in a discussion about the retirement age. Retirement age is a very contentious issue within The Netherlands because the cabinet has plans to elevate the retirement age step by step from the current retirement age of 65 years to 67 years in 2020. This topic was chosen because most young people believe that the

retirement age should not be raised (NOS, 12 September, 2013). Therefore, it is a good topic to use when the other person must disagree with the majority of participants. The extent to which participants were influenced by the other person and how much they preferred the other person were measured with this test.

3.3 Measures

3.3.1 Manipulation check

In the last part of the survey, three items were included to check whether the manipulation and the allocation to a dyad with the other person (i.e., whom they had to imagine as being higher/lower in organizational hierarchy and similar/dissimilar in way of thinking) had succeeded in its intent. To measure participants’ perception of their status position toward the other person, the following item was included, “How much more or less status did you have in your role within the organization compared to ‘this other person’”?3 This item was accompanied with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1(much less status) to 7 (much more

status). Participants were also asked if they remembered what kind of ‘thinker’ they were and

what kind of thinker the other person was according to the ‘Minopeles Test’ and to test if they perceived the other person to be a similar or dissimilar thinker. To measure this, the following items were used: “What type of ‘thinker’ are you according to the Minopeles Test?” and “What type of ‘thinker’ was this other person according to the Minopeles’ Test?” For both questions participants could choose between two answers: XYZ thinker and JTY thinker.

3.3.2 Preference

To assess participants’ degree of preference for the other person, a seven-item scale was used: “If I could choose with whom I would like to work on a project, I would definitely choose this other person,” ”I would really like to work with this other person,” “This other                                                                                                                

person would be a good friend of mine, if she were not also working in my company,” “This other person is a nice person,” “I would always experience some tension when I had to cooperate with this other person,” “If I could choose with whom I would like to work on a project, I would definitely choose this other person,” “I like this other person’s values.” Participants answered the items on 7-point Likert scales ranging from (1 = not at all; 7 =

extremely). The reliability of the 7 items that measure the level of preference was good

(Cronbach’s alpha = 0. 78).

3.3.3 Influence

To what extent respondents were influenced by the other person was measured using eight items: “This other person is right that raising the retirement age is advantageous,” “Although I firstly was against raising of the retirement age, I now realize that raising the retirement age has a lot of advantages,” “When this other person would try to convince me when we have a disagreement, he or she would almost always succeed in this,” “This other person always gives good arguments for his or her opinion,” “This other person is very

capable of performing his or her job,” “This other person has much knowledge about the work that needs to be done in the job,” “When you would be in doubt about certain things, the opinion of this other person would be very important to you,” “You would feel more

confident, when this other person would give his or her opinion on an important decision that you must make.” All eight items were answered on 7-point scales (1 = not at all; 7 =

extremely). The reliability of the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha = .69).

4.1 Manipulation check

below 4 were removed. This criterion invalidated 19 participants, leaving a final sample of 237 on which to run the analyses.

A chi-square test was performed to examine the difference between participants from the two conditions (Similar vs. Dissimilar) on reporting what kind of thinker they were. The relation between these variables was significant, X2 (N = 256) = 4.74, p < .029; from those participants who were told to be in a dyad with someone dissimilar, significant more

participants incorrectly indicated to be a XYZ-thinker in comparison with those participants in the similar condition (Table 3).

Also a chi-square test was conducted to test the difference between participants from the two conditions (Similar vs. Dissimilar) on reporting what kind of thinker ‘the other person’ was. The relation between these variables was significant, X2(N = 256) = 206.65, p <.001; participants in the similar condition significantly differed from participants in the dissimilar condition on the question were they had to indicate what type of thinker ‘the other person’ was (Table 3).

Twenty-one participants responded incorrectly to the question were they had to indicate their own way of thinking and the question were they had to indicate the way of thinking of the other person (table 3). However from the 21 participants that answered incorrectly to this question, six also answered incorrectly to the manipulation check on status and thus a total of 34 (19 + 15) participants were removed. For the analyses that follow a total of 222 participants were left on which to run all analyses.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics of one item as a manipulation check for status perception

4.2 Preference (Hypothesis 1)

A 2 x 2 ANOVA was conducted to test the two main effects and interaction effect of similarity and status on preference for the other person in a dyad (Table 4).

Inconsistent with Hypothesis 1, the main effect of similarity on preference was not significant F (1, 218) = 0.60, p = 0.28, meaning that people did not have significantly more preference for a similar other than a dissimilar other. Although outside the purview of the hypotheses, the main effect of power on preference was also examined. The main effect of power on preference was significant, F (1, 218) = 5.02, p = 0.03, such that powerful people had higher levels of preference for their subordinates than subordinates had for their

supervisors.

Table 3

Number and percentage of people that answered incorrect on two items to check the manipulation of similarity

Similar Dissimilar What type of thinker

are you according to the ‘minopeles tes’?

1 (0.78%)

7 (5.5%) What type of ‘thinker’

was ‘this other person according to the ‘minopeles test’ 7 (5.4%) 6 (4.7%)

Note: N=129 (similar condition) and N=127 (dissimilar condition)

Table 4

4.3 Influence (Hypothesis 2 & 3)

A 2 x 2 ANOVA was conducted to test the two main effects and interaction effect of similarity and power on influence in a dyad (Table 5).

A 2 x 2 ANOVA was conducted to test what the effects were of similarity in way of thinking in a dyad and hierarchical position in a dyad on the process of influencing.

No significant effect for similarity on influence was found, F(1,218) = 2.12, p = 0.15, therefore Hypothesis 2 is not supported; there was no difference in level of influence between people in a dyad with someone dissimilar to them and people in a dyad with someone similar to them in way of thinking. Also the main effect of status was non-significant, F (1, 218) = 0.46, p = 0.50, meaning that the influence supervisors had on their subordinates did not differ from the influence subordinates had on their supervisors.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that hierarchical role would have a moderating effect on the relationship between similarity and influence; subordinates have more influence on their supervisors when they are similar, rather than they are dissimilar to their supervisor

This Hypothesis was not confirmed as no interaction was observed between similarity and status on influence, F (1, 218) = 0.40, p = 0.53.

Table 5

Descriptive statistics for Influence as a function of similar/dissimilar by subordinate/supervisor condition.

5. General Discussion

This study sought to gain understanding of how interpersonal diversity affects the process of influencing and preference. Although extensive research has been conducted on the impact of diversity on organizational performance, no consistent conclusion has been found; outcomes are divided in positive and negative results. However, no empirical research has attempted to investigate the impact of diversity on different interpersonal processes in order to better understand the diffuse results. Therefore this study aimed to test in which way

interpersonal dissimilarity impacts underlying processes, in order to prove that the

implications of organizational diversity are not unilateral. This study proposed that diversity in a dyad effects the preference (H1) people have for the other and the extent to which they are influenced (H2) by the other, supposing that people will have a higher preference for similar others but are more influenced by dissimilar others. It was further proposed that power will have a moderating effect on the relationship between dissimilarity and influence (H3), that is, powerless people will be more influential when similar to the powerful.

With respect to Hypothesis 1, results revealed a non-significant outcome for the relation between similarity and preference. Individuals had no higher preference to work with a similar other than with a dissimilar other. Supported by many theories, the

similarity-attraction theory predicts interpersonal preference by stating that people are attracted to others similar to themselves. Although this theory is applicable to numerous situations, other

powerless people. These theories adequately cover the observed results.

Hypothesis 2 proposes that compared to similar others, people are more likely to be influenced by dissimilar others. This assumption was not confirmed in this study. There was no difference in level of influence between people in a dyad with someone dissimilar to them and people in a dyad with someone similar to them. Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale (1999) discussed that someone’s influence in a group can depend on a different aspect; not only differences in values, but also informational and background diversity determine the extent of influence.

Following this logic, the lack of findings in this study can possibly be explained to be due to the incompleteness of information candidates received about ‘the other person’ in their dyad. The incompleteness of information perhaps diminished the potential effect similarity or dissimilarity in values and beliefs could have on the process of influence in dyad, which therefore caused the lack of observable effects.

Surprisingly enough, the results revealed that supervisors did not have more influence on their subordinates than subordinates had on their supervisors. Whereas we always expected powerful people to automatically have more influence than people lower in power.

Herold (1977) found that supervisors’ behavior and attitudes varied depending on the performance of the subordinate and vice versa. For this study, this would imply that the expected influence of supervisors on subordinates might be more affected by the mutual perceived performance instead of solely the possession or lack of power.

is that although power may still be a variable, it appears to have no effect on the process by which diversity works.

6. Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations to this study. First of all, this research was not based on a real situation but on a scenario; there were no actual employees discussing their retirement age. The results and findings should be compared to results obtained from field research. The possibility exists that people would have behaved differently when they would have been in an interpersonal discussion with their actual supervisor or subordinate. In addition,

participants possibly experienced the categorization in way of thinking as abstract. The research participants were informed about what kind of thinker they were and what kind of thinker the other person was. This was done according to a test that they had to complete, instead of actually experiencing the other as being similar or dissimilar.

Secondly, participants in this research were all students that followed an HR bachelor course, students had to imagine themselves as being in the role of a junior HR specialist in the HR department of a large company. Therefore it is possible that the results would have been different when actual HR employees would have participated in the research. A group of students are not comparable to actual HR employees in a big company, for example it is possible that the students had never experienced disagreement in organizational settings with someone higher or lower in power, or that their experiences of disagreement with an authority figure were not analogous to such a disagreement in a business setting.

Thirdly, the retirement age was chosen as the topic of discussion because the

opinion about the topic of discussion. Further research could search for topics of discussion that are closely related to a critical topic. For example, for HR employees this could be whether it is ethical to judge job candidates on their Facebook page in their application process.

Research participants had to imagine being in a situation with either someone that was two levels above or two levels below them in organizational hierarchy. This formed another limitation to the study because ‘organizational hierarchy’ is a subjective concept, which was not clearly defined for the research participants. Although the concepts of status and power clearly have a different impact and meaning, I have reasoned from the concept of power. Possibly some of the employees linked different hierarchical positions to differences in power, whereas others perhaps experienced this as differences in status. “A person is said to have power if he influences the behaviour of others in accordance with his own intentions” (Goldhamer & Shills, 1939). The lack of significance in the relationship between power and influence in this study would therefore mean that the manipulation of power did not have the right effect.

An ideal research design to measure the hypotheses of this thesis would severely decrease or eliminate the need for abstract concepts entirely. In the ideal situation, participants would be selected from existing hierarchical positions, extensively tested for either significant similarities or significant dissimilarities and asked to discuss a real issue within the company. To control for any factors outside of the selection criteria themselves, the experiment should be done at many different companies, of various sizes, based in various countries, and within many different industries. Moreover, further research could focus on people from different work fields instead of only HR employees to ensure a representative distribution of the working population.

Alternatively, a completely abstract version could be designed. The similarities or dissimilarities, the power and the topic of discussion could all be randomly assigned to

participants, possibly in two groups, one without, and the other with their knowledge, to act as control group against testing artifacts.

identify other additional dependent variables that perhaps have a stronger significant

relationship with diversity than the current dependent variables, preference and influencing. This might be creativity, teamwork or helping behavior.

To conclude, in future research, other factors should be identified that are the real key to unlocking diversity’s underlying processes to be able to successfully promote its positive effects over its negative effects.

7. Practical Implications

In response to the increasing diversity among employees in work environments, this research intended to capture new insights on the processes that are caused by dissimilarity in a dyad in order to better understand the implications of a diverse workforce. Due to the lack of significant findings, this study has not succeeded to contribute to the understanding of why and when diversity among employees will have a positive or negative impact on work processes. The processes that are triggered when dissimilar people are in a dyad must be revealed in order to properly predict the positive and negative results.

Theoretical frameworks such as the information/decision-making perspective

(Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) that suggest that dissimilarity among people enhances decision-making quality through the variety of viewpoints brought together appears to make theoretical sense, but the practical implications are not yet clear. What if people are not influenced by each other and thus the beneficial effect of a variety of viewpoints does not lead to enhanced decision-making? These kinds of questions remain unsolved and other ways must be

examined to gain insights and to reveal the apparent paradox of diversity and the practical implications it may have.

Only the significant negative relationship between power and preference has practical implications. Supervisors must be aware that they should use their level of power in the right way to minimize the potential negative effects that low levels of preference from their

8. Conclusion

In summary, this study adds minimal value to the existing research on the effects of organizational diversity. Despite the attempt to get better insights into the processes that are caused by diversity in interpersonal relations, in order to better understand the consequences of diversity, no significant relations were found between diversity and the concepts of

preference and influence. Suggestions were made to improve the design of the experiment and to review previous research with the purpose of identifying the reason why both positive and negative effects can be observed, also potentially the inclusion of one or more possible

Amabile, T.M. (1994). The atmosphere of pure work: creativity in research and development.

The social Psychology of science, 187-194.

Bakan D. (1966) The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 26, 187-209.

Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. J. Abnormal Social

Psychology, 62, 713-5.

Chatman, J.A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 209-264

Chiaburu, D. S., & Carpenter, N. C. (2013). Social interaction motivations and employees’ discretionary behaviors. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 97-103.

Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003) Justice and Identity: Changing perspectives on what is fair.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 298 – 310.

Condon, J. W., & Crano, W. D. (1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (5), 789-797.

Davis, M.H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70, 713–726.

Dick van, 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.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social Cognition and Social Perceptions. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 155–194.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074.

Goethals, G. R. (1972). Consensus and modality in the attribution process: The role of similarity and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 84-92. Goethals, G.R., & Nelson, R. (1973). Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 25, 117-122.

Hackman, J.R. (1998). Why teams don’t work. Leader to Leader, 7, 24–31.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of psychology, 53, 575.

Hilmert, C. J., Kulik, J. A., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2006). Positive and negative opinion modeling: The influence of another's similarity and dissimilarity. Journal of Personality &

Social Psychology, 90, 440-452.

Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K.W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189-1199.

Hurtado S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity

challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action. Cambridge:

Jackson, S. E. (1992). Diversity in the workplace: Human resources initiatives. New York: Guilford.

Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in organizations. In S. Worchel, W. Wood & J. Simpson (Eds.). Group process and productivity. London: Sage, 1-12.

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.

Kelley, H. H. (1976). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on

Motivation, 15, 192-238.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach and inhibition.

Psychological Review, 110, 265 – 284.

Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 24, 33-41.

Lammers, J. Gordijn, E.H., & Otten, S. (2008). Looking through the eyes of the powerful.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1229-1238.

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.

Medin, D. L. & Bang, M. (2008). Perspective taking, diversity and partnerships. American

Psychological Association, 22 (2).

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.

39 (2), 187-194.

Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 1-20

Swann, W. B., Stein-Seroussi, A., Giesler, B. R. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 392-401.

Tepper, B.J., Moss, S.E., & Duffy, M.K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (2), 279-294.

Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization and social influence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence, 2, 233–275.

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.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual review of

Psychology, 85, 515-541.

Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Pietroni, D., & Manstead, A.S.R. (2006). Power and emotion in negotiation: Power moderates the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on concession making. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 557-581.

Van Maanen, J., Schein, E. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational socialization.

Research in organizational behavior, 1, 209-264.

Varela, O., Cater, J.J., Michel, N. (2011). Similarity attraction in learning contexts: An empirical study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 49 - 68.

Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, (2001). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of college. Journal

of higher education, 72, 172-204.