DO LEADERS MAKE BIASED PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
REGARDING HETEROGENEOUS TEAMS?
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Januari 14, 2009
MAAIKE (H.E) SCHMIDT Student number: 1328603
2
DO LEADERS MAKE BIASED PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
REGARDING HETEROGENEOUS TEAMS?
ABSTRACT
In this research, I present an experimental study that examines whether or not leaders make a biased evaluation regarding heterogeneous teams. Data was collected in several organizations in the Northern Netherlands (N = 60). The results show that leaders in the low conflict condition evaluate heterogeneous and homogeneous teams differently: they evaluate heterogeneous teams as more cohesive and more successful than homogeneous teams. Importantly, moderational analysis shows that this effect is reinforced by 1) a charismatic leadership style, and 2) perceiving oneself as being powerful in the organization. Based on these results, practical implications for organizations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
3 INTRO DUCTION
Due to globalisation, the workforce in the Netherlands is becoming more and more diverse (Watson, Johnson & Zgourides, 2002). By now, 20% of the population is of foreign origin, (www.cbs.nl), and it is expected that this percentage will increase even more in the future (Watson, Johnson & Zgourides, 2002). It is therefore highly distressing that Dutch organizations seem to have reservations against hiring ethnic minority members or people of different cultural backgrounds. In a annual study (2008) into the existence of multicultural climates on the work floor, almost 60% of the respondents were shown to hold negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities, and only 35% indicated that their organizational staff actually reflects Dutch society (see www.volkskrantbanen.nl and ‘adviesbureau GITP’). Thus, there still seems to be a strong bias regarding ethic minority members. In this paper, I will examine whether such biases only exist at the individual level as shown by the aforementioned study, or whether they also play an important role at the collective level, influencing leaders’ evaluation of heterogeneous work teams in organizations.
My central purpose is to examine whether leaders are biased against the level of cohesion and success of teams in which members have diverse cultural backgrounds. This is highly important to examine as leaders can play a crucial role in how organizations manage, and effectively deal with diversity in the work place. Moreover, in most diversity studies the perception of the team leader is often used as an objective indicator of team performance. I argue that these performance evaluations might not be as objective as generally assumed, and may be influenced by leaders’ biases towards heterogeneous teams. Research into whether this is indeed the case can inform us about why diversity research so far has obtained very mixed results about whether diversity is beneficial or harmful for team performance (Milliken & Martens, 1996; Williams & O´Reilly, 1998; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). I will first give a definition of diversity and describe earlier research in this area. Based on the social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979 in Rink & Ellemers, 2007), I will then present the theoretical framework of my research.
Diversity in Teams
4 Invisible diversity characteristic are differences you cannot see from the outside such as people’s level of education, their work experience, or their personality. By contrast, visible demographic or categorical diversity characteristics can be seen from the outside such as gender, age, race, or ethnicity (Milliken & Martens, 1996). In general, people respond differently to visible and invisible diversity characteristics. Visible diversity characteristics are likely to evoke stereotypical responses and responses that are due to people’s biases (Milliken & Martins, 1996). A bias is ‘a systematic tendency to use or interpret information in a way that results in inaccurate perceptions´ (George & Jones, 2005: 117). According to Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory (1979 in Rink & Ellemers, 2007), ‘people derive their identity and sense of self from the social categories to which they belong’ (Rink & Ellemers, 2007: 500). Perceived similarity of important characteristics often forms a basis for self-categorization and identification (Rink & Ellemers, 2007). People therefore tend to prefer team members who are similar to them (the in group), and will evaluate them more positively than heterogeneous team members, (who differ from them, and thus belong to the out group).
Earlier research shows mixed results about demographic differences in teams (Milliken & Martens, 1996; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). On the one hand, demographic differences are linked to differences in knowledge and resources (George & Jones, 2005), which results in more innovative ideas (Miller, Felds, Kumar & Oriz, 2000), better quality of ideas (McLeod & Label, 1992), and improved decision making (Kuo, 2004). Another benefit of heterogeneous teams is that they are better able to serve different types of customers. Accordingly, these teams can be a factor of success for the marketing of an organization (Cox, 1991).
On the other hand, as indicated above, clearly noticeable demographic differences are likely to be evaluated more negatively by people and tend to evoke biased and stereotypical responses (Milliken & Martins, 1996). As a result, heterogeneous teams tend to experience relatively high levels of conflict, anxiety (Kuo, 2004), miscommunication, and lack of trust (Jackson, May & Whitney, 1994; Steiner, 1972). These feelings of discomfort generally lead to more turnover and absenteeism in heterogeneous teams than in homogeneous teams (Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin and Peyronnin, 1991; Milliken & Martens, 1996).
5 performance expectations—expectations about ones own and other people’s ability— influence the decision of who to give power and prestige in a group. For example, if a manager has high expectations of an individual’s performance, he or she will give this individual more opportunities to participate in and influence group decisions and outcomes. Based on this reasoning, I argue that when teams are highly heterogeneous in composition, team leaders may also develop biases and stereotypes about the collective team performance (and not only about individuals) (Bunderson, 2003). See also the status characteristics theory; Berger, Cohen & Zelditch, 1972, in Bunderson, 2003).
Theory and Hypotheses
As indicated at the beginning of the introduction, previous diversity research has primarily made use of leaders’ evaluations as performance indicators of heterogeneous teams. However, I believe that team leaders might be biased towards heterogeneous teams, making their performance evaluations more subjective than generally assumed. In general, heterogeneous teams are seen to have more conflict than homogeneous teams (Kuo, 2004). I would like to examine how such teams are evaluated in two specific situations: one with low conflict, and one with high conflict. Conflict in high conflict situations is by definition obvious and so for leaders the situation seems clear and therefore not demanding of further detailed analysis. In low conflict situations there is not enough conflict for leaders to be sure a conflict actually exists, and so such situations are defined in this paper as being ambiguous. In ambiguous situations people first need to identify the behaviors to be judged before they can actually make a judgment (Trope, 1986; Trope, Cohen & Alfieri, 1991). People identify the behaviors of others through the stereotypes that they hold regarding the situations and people that are being judged (Dunning & Sherman, 1997). Thus, in ambiguous situations people use stereotypes to both make sense of the situation, and make judgments about it.
6 Further, I will investigate two factors that might strengthen or weaken the existence of biased performance evaluations of team leaders against heterogeneous teams. These factors are: 1) a charismatic leadership style; 2) and the power the leader perceive he/she has in the organization. See figure 1.
FIGURE 1: Research Model
omogeneous
Charismatic leadership style. My review of the literature revealed only one study that
examined the influence of leaders’ perceptions on evaluating homogeneous and heterogeneous team performance. The study of Mayo, Pastor, & Meindl (1996) examined the role of diversity and leadership style. In their study they examined two leadership styles: the transactional leadership style and the charismatic leadership style. Transactional leaders are focused on tasks, performances, and rewards, and they will directly intervene when something goes wrong (Van Engen & Vinkenburg, 2005). Charismatic leaders, on the other hand, are more focused on people; they inspire and motivate their subordinates, resulting in these subordinates acting beyond their self-interest, and for the good of the organization (Van Engen & Vinkenburg, 2005).
Mayo et al., (1996) found that diversity indeed affects leaders’ evaluation of the groups’ performance levels. Demographic diversity leads to lower performance evaluations of heterogeneous teams, which, in turn, results in a passive management approach. Since
Independent variables Level of Conflict (high vs. low) Team composition (heterogeneous vs. homogeneous) Moderators
Charismatic leadership style (low vs. high)
Perceived power of the leader (low vs. high)
7 heterogeneous teams need an active management approach to overcome their differences, this passive management approach in fact decreases the performance of heterogeneous teams. The negative impressions and expectations of team leaders about heterogeneous teams can thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy: the negative expectations of the leader will result in poor team performance (Merton, 1948). This so called “perceptual bias effect” tends to be stronger for charismatic leaders than for transactional leaders (Mayo et al., 1996). An explanation for this is that charismatic leaders are more likely to promote harmony, develop cohesion, and generate consensus than transactional leaders since they focus more on people than on the tasks that need to be done. These typical charismatic leader characteristics contradict the typically description within heterogeneous teams (Bass, 1990) given that such teams are often seen as more conflicting and less cohesive than homogeneous teams (Kuo, 2004; Milliken & Martins, 1996).
In their research Mayo et al., (1996) acknowledge that the exact relationship between different leadership styles and the evaluation of heterogeneous teams needs to be further investigated. I will therefore examine if a charismatic leadership style has an impact upon the way leaders judge heterogeneous teams. This leads to my second proposition:
Hypothesis 2: A charismatic leadership style moderates the relationship between team composition (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous) and the expected team performance such that heterogeneous teams are expected to be less cohesive and less successful when evaluated by a charismatic leader.
Perceived power of the leader. Power is defined as having influence or control over
8 Power also reduces perspective taking: “stepping outside of one’s own experience and imagining the emotions, perceptions, and motivations of other people” (Galinsky, Magee, Inesi & Gruenfeld, 2006: 1068). Consequences of reduced perspective taking are that people are less likely to adopt other views and are less accurate in detecting emotional states in other people. By not attending to the concerns of other people, the powerful are more likely to pursue their own goals instead of collective goals or those of other individuals (Galinsky, Gruenfeld & Magee, 2003). This may indicate that there is an integrated relationship among power, perspective taking, and stereotyping: power reduces perspective taking (Galinsky, Magee, Inesi & Gruenfeld, 2006), which in turn results in more stereotyping (Fiske, 1993).
To conclude, power leads to more stereotyping. The influence of power is highly important for heterogeneous teams, since, in general, heterogeneous teams are seen as more problematic than homogenous teams (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Thus, I believe, there are probably more negative biases against heterogeneous teams. These negative biases may influence the evaluation of such teams. For this study it is important to know how much power a leader perceives he/she has in the organization since this may explain why some leaders may have stronger biases in their performance evaluations regarding heterogeneous teams than other leaders. So, my third proposition is:
Hypothesis 3: The perceived power of a leader moderates the relationship between team composition and the expected team performance such that heterogeneous teams are expected to be less cohesive and less successful when evaluated by leaders who perceive themselves as having more power in the organization
9 METHOD
Participants and Design
I used a 2 (Diversity Level: Homogeneous vs. Heterogeneous) by 2 (Conflict: Low vs. High) between-subjects experimental design. Participants were N = 60 employees (N = 15 per condition) from several Dutch organizations in the Northern Netherlands. All managers, 38 men and 22 women, were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Personnel departments supported my research, and participation by managers was voluntarily. A person that worked for the organization approached the participants. Afterwards all participants received feedback about the purpose of the research.
Procedure
Participants received an email (see appendix 1) explaining the purpose of the study. They were informed that I wanted to examine how leaders see and evaluate their team, and to study the factors that they consider important for their team evaluations. This was done through the use of several questions and a script. The script described a selection committee, consisting of four men, having a dialogue about choosing the right candidates for the next round in a selection process. After reading the script, participants had to answer a series of questions about this dialogue (see appendix 7 for the questionnaire).
Diversity Manipulation
10 Conflict Manipulation
Participants received one of two scripts describing a part of the decision making process of the selection committee. The two scripts were similar in content, but differed in tone to manipulate different levels of conflict (high vs. low; see appendix 5 for the high conflict script, and appendix 6 for the low conflict script). Before launching the main study, I tested these two scripts in a pilot study (N = 20; see appendix 3 for the questionnaire used). Two one-way ANOVAs showed that there were significant differences between the two conditions on both questions, respectively, F (1, 18) = 16, p < 0.01, ŋ² = 0.5, and F (1, 18) = 5.54, p = 0.03, ŋ² = 0.26. Overall, participants indicated that members were less able to get along and experienced more disagreement in the high conflict condition than in the low conflict condition. The final questionnaire (see appendix 7) contained five Likert-type scale questions about task conflict (anchored by 1 (not at all) and 7 (very much)), to confirm my manipulation (e.g. “In your opinion, how much do the selection committee members argue about who they believe is the best candidate?”). As expected, participants rated that there was more conflict in the high conflict condition than in the low conflict condition, F (1,59) = 10.69, p = 0.002, ŋ² = 0.15. To conclude, the results showed that my manipulation of a high vs. a low conflict situation was successful.
TABLE 2: Research Design
Team Composition
Homogeneous Heterogeneous
High Conflict Condition 1A
Condition 1B
Condition 2 Type of
script Low Conflict Condition 2A
Condition 2B
11 Control Variables
Before testing the hypotheses I controlled for some constructs to see whether or not they had an influence on the independent variables expected cohesion and expected success of the team. I controlled for: 1) leaders´ gender; 2) leaders’ age; and 3) stereotypes leaders have regarding certain groups of people.
As for leaders’ gender, men prefer a more transactional leadership style, while women prefer a more charismatic leadership style (Van Engen & Vinkenburg, 2005). Further, there appears to be a relation between age and leadership style (Mayo, Pastor & Meindl, 1996). Most older leaders, as compared to younger leaders, are trained according to conventional management styles which were based on the statement that homogeneity leads to high performance, and heterogeneity to bad performance (Mayo, Pators & Meindl, 1996). Finally, I controlled for stereotypes to examine what kind of stereotypes the participants hold regarding other groups since this may influence their evaluation of heterogeneous teams. To test for stereotypes, the participants had to rate how much they think typical characteristics of Dutch (Cronbach’s α = .67) and Moroccan people (Cronbach’s α = .66) are valid for each group Examples of characteristics I used are: friendly, dominant, religious, and aggressive (Fisher, Greitenmeyer, & Kastenmuller, 2007).
I also used three questions (Cronbach’s α = .65) from the Social Dominance Orientation questionnaire (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) to measure if participants think it is legitimate to have group inequality (e.g. “It is probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom of society”). I used this questionnaire since research shows that the test is reliable (Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003). The three items had to be answered on a 1-7 scale, anchored by 1 ‘none’ to 7 ‘very much’.
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables in this research were: 1) expected cohesion of the team, and 2) expected success of the team. For all these items covering both constructs, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by 1 “not at all” and 7 “very much”.
Expected cohesion. This construct (reliability alpha .89) was measured with questions
12 team, I used items such as “How well do the team members get along with each other on a personal level?” (Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995). To measure the level of relational conflict within the team, I sued items such as “How much tension is there within the team?” (Jehn, 1995).
Expected success. The expected success of the team was measured by one single item:
“How successful do you think this team is?”
Moderators
Charismatic leadership style. In this study I examined if the charismatic leadership
style moderated the effect on expected cohesion of the team and expected success, through the use of items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avilio, 1990). This questionnaire distinguishes between three leadership styles: transactional, charismatic, and laissez fair (Van Engen & Vinkenburg, 2005), and meta-analytic research shows that it is reliable and predictive (Tejeda & Barry, 2001). For this study three charismatic leadership style items (e.g. “How much respect do you have for the personal feeling of others?”) were used to form a scale (Cronbach’s α = .73). The possible responses were anchored by 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
Perceived power of the leader. I also controlled for the amount of power the
participants perceived to have in the organization they work in. This way, I was able to check whether these variables moderated the influence of my manipulations on leaders’ evaluation of heterogeneous and homogeneous teams. To measure the perceived power of the leader, I used three items (e.g. “How much influence do you have in your organization?”; (Stoker, 2008).The three items had to be answered on a Likert-type scale, anchored by 1 ‘none’ to 7 ‘very much’. This construct has a Cronbach’s α = .74.
RESULTS
To test my hypotheses, I used a 2 by 2 ANOVA with team composition and level of conflict as between subject factors. I first measured how my manipulations affected the way leaders evaluate the teams in terms of expected cohesion and expected success (as indicators of overall team performance). After that, I measured whether the charismatic leadership style, and the perceived power of the leader have an influence on leaders’ performance evaluations.
13 people, and also if participants think it is legitimate to have group inequality. Importantly, however, these factors did not have any influence on the way my manipulations affected my main dependent variables.
Dependent Variables
Expected cohesion. A two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to
examine the impact of level of conflict, and team composition on the expected level of cohesion within the teams. There was a significant main effect for level of conflict F (1,55) = 24.5, p < .001, ŋ² = 0.33, qualified by a significant interaction effect between level of conflict, and team composition, F (1,55) = 4.55, p = 0.04, ŋ² = 0.08. Further, post hoc analyses revealed that when it was obvious that there was a lot of conflict within the teams, leaders evaluated both homogeneous and heterogeneous teams as equally negative, and thought that both types of teams were not highly cohesive. In contrast, when there was no conflict, and it was less clear how to evaluate the teams, composition seemed to matter. In that situation, heterogeneous teams were considered to be significantly more cohesive than homogeneous teams, F (1,32) = 41.97, p < 0.001, ŋ² = 0.5. See for means and standard deviations table 2, and appendix 8a for a graph.
TABLE 2: Means and Standard Deviations as a Function of Level of Conflict and Team Composition
Dependent variable Level of conflict Team composition M SD Expected cohesion High conflict Homogeneous 3.50a 0.79
Heterogeneous 3.36a 0.65
Low conflict Homogeneous 4.00a 0.89
Heterogeneous 4.76b 0.61
Expected Success High conflict Homogeneous 3.43 a 1.38
Heterogeneous 3.95 a 1.29
Low conflict Homogeneous 2.92a 1.27
Heterogeneous 4.88b 1.09
14
Expected success. The two-way between-groups analysis of variance showed a
significant main effect for team composition on expected success, F (1,58) = 15.73, p < 0.001, ŋ² = 0.21 qualified by an interaction effect for level of conflict and team composition, F (1,58) = 6.37, p = 0.01, ŋ² = 0.1. Additional analyses showed that there was only a significant effect in the heterogeneous condition, F (1, 34)= 7.19, p= 0.001, ŋ²= 0.18. Again, in the high conflict condition, leaders evaluated homogeneous and heterogeneous teams as equally successful. However, in the low conflict condition, heterogeneous teams were considered to be significantly more successful than homogeneous teams. Thus, when there is no conflict, participants seem to assume and expect that heterogeneous teams will outperform homogeneous teams. See table 3 for means and correlations, and appendix 8b for a graph.
TABLE 3: General Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Measures
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.Level of conflict 1.49 0.51 1 2.Team composition 2.14 1.00 -0.11 1 3.Leadership style 4.57 0.88 0.29* -0.17 1 4.Perceived power 2.92 0.70 0.01 0.34** 0.14 1 5.Expected cohesion 3.90 0.92 0.55** 0.17 0.15 -0.09 1 6.Expected success 3.87 1.37 0.07 0.43** -0.13 -0.19 0.47** 1 NOTE: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Moderators
Charismatic leadership style. I conducted a median split for charismatic leadership
15 When participants scored low on charismatic leadership, they perceived both types of teams to be equally cohesive, F (1,8) = 0.08, p = ns, ŋ²= 0.01 (see appendix 8c for the graph).
I performed the same analysis as above, 2 x 2 ANOVA, for the dependent variable expected success. Again, I found a significant effect, F (1,14) = 15.08, p = 0.001, ŋ²= 0.49, showing that in the low conflict condition participants were only biased, evaluating heterogeneous teams as more successful than homogeneous teams, when they score high on the charismatic leadership style. When participants did not have a charismatic leadership style, leaders perceived the homogeneous and heterogeneous groups to be equally unsuccessful, F (1,8) = 1.83, p = ns, ŋ²= = 0.19 (see appendix 8d for the graph).
Perceived power of the leader. For the construct perceived power of the leader, I
conducted a median split, Mean = 2.93, SD = 0.55, and performed a 2 (perceived power of the leader: high vs. low) by 2 (low conflict condition: homogeneous vs. heterogeneous team) ANOVA on expected cohesion within the team. In the low conflict condition and with participants perceiving themselves as powerful, I found a marginal significant effect, F (1,12) = 3.77, p = 0.07, ŋ²= = 0.24. This means that participants with power were biased, and evaluated heterogeneous teams as more cohesive than homogeneous teams. I did not find an effect for participants who perceived themselves as powerless in their organization, F (1,12)= 2.33, p= ns, ŋ²= 0.16. These participants perceived the homogeneous and heterogeneous teams to be similarly cohesive (see appendix 8e for the graph).
The same analysis as above, 2 x 2 ANOVA, was performed for the dependent variable expected success. As expected, I found a significant effect, F (1,12) = 18.67, p = 0.001, ŋ²= = 0.61, showing that leaders were biased, and evaluated heterogeneous teams as more successful than the homogeneous teams when participants perceived themselves as being powerful. When participants perceived themselves as powerless, they evaluate homogeneous and heterogeneous teams to be similar successful, F (1,12) = 2.55, p = 0.14, ŋ²= = 0.18 (see appendix 8f for the graph).
DISCUSSION
16 direction than I expected. Furthermore, this effect is moderated by a charismatic leadership style, and perceived power of the leader.
In the high conflict condition, leaders evaluated the expected cohesion in both heterogeneous and homogeneous teams as similar. In contrast, in the low conflict condition leaders evaluated heterogeneous teams as more cohesive than homogeneous teams. This result is in contrast with earlier research that found that homogeneous teams are seen as more cohesive (O’Reilly, Caldwell & Barnett, 1989). A reason for this effect might be the bias of positive expectancy violation (Burgoon, Dunbar, & Sergin, 2002). This bias suggests that, in general, leaders expect some conflict in heterogeneous teams. When this conflict does not occur their expectation is violated, which may lead to an extra positive evaluation of heterogeneous teams in comparison with homogeneous teams for which leaders expect no conflict anyway. In such an occasion, leaders might assume and expect that heterogeneous team are more cohesive than homogeneous team.
17 Despite the fact that the results of the main hypothesis are in the opposite direction, the examined moderators still influence the outcomes that were found. This means that the charismatic leadership style moderates the effect on expected cohesiveness and expected success of the heterogeneous teams. Charismatic leaders found heterogeneous teams to be more cohesive and successful than homogeneous teams. In comparison, leaders that score low on charismatic leadership style behaviors evaluated heterogeneous and homogeneous teams as being equally cohesive and successful. An explanation for this bias in charismatic leaders, and not in other leaders, is that charismatic leaders focus more on people and less on tasks like transactional leaders. For that reason they might be more surprised that there is no conflict within heterogeneous teams, therefore evaluating these teams as more cohesive than homogeneous teams. Also, Mayo, Pator, and Meindl (1996) found that the indirect effect of heterogeneity is especially strong for charismatic leaders.
As expected, the self-perceived power of the leader moderates the evaluation of heterogeneous teams. Leaders who perceive themselves as powerful evaluate heterogeneous teams as being more cohesive and more successful than homogeneous teams. This is not surprising given that much research (Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000; Galinsky, Magee, Inesi & Gruenfeld, 2006) has shown power to influence one’s evaluations and perspective taking. And so, the results of my study show that leaders do indeed have stereotypes regarding heterogeneous teams. However, contrary to what I described in the introduction, these biases are actually of a positive, not negative, nature.
Lastly, this research is innovative because it is based on leaders’ self-assessment of their own power. In contrast, former studies in this area are mostly based on how much power other people believe a leader to have in the organization.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
18 was rather low. A reason for this might be that the respondents felt that the questionnaire was too long, since people are more likely to respond to a shorter than a longer questionnaire (Christopher & Wojda, 2008). Participants found it particularly hard to read the script; they often found it too long. Consequently, future studies such as this one should make use of a script with a maximum of one page. This will result in a shorter questionnaire, which makes it more likely that the response rate will be higher.
A further limitation is that in this study I examined only one leadership style; the charismatic leadership style, which moderates the effect of team composition (heterogeneous or homogeneous) on the expected cohesion and successfulness of these teams. There might also be other leadership styles that may moderate this effect, for example the transactional leadership style (George & Jones, 2005). Therefore, in future research more leadership styles should be taken into account to see if they have a moderation effect on the performance evaluations of leaders.
Another limitation of this study is that participants in general perceive themselves as having average or less than average power in their organizations. A reason for this could be that most participants are working at lower management levels which might have influenced the power they think they have in their organization. This could be another cause for the marginal effect I found for the moderated effect of power on expected cohesion. So, for future research it might be interesting to see if participants who think they have more power in their organizations display a stronger bias for expected cohesion and successfulness.
The last limitation of this study is that it was held in organizations in the north of the Netherlands. In this part of the country there are relatively fewer minorities in comparison to the west of the Netherlands. Therefore, it would be interesting if this research would also be held in the west of the Netherlands, where most minorities live and work, relative to the general population.
Practical Implications
19 This bias can have an influence on the decision making of leaders since the expectations and feelings leaders have about a certain situation, have an influence on how they approach situations. This, in turn, might influence their decision making (Van Dijk, Zeelenberg & Van der Pligt, 2003). Therefore, it is important that leaders are aware that they have these biases regarding heterogeneous and homogeneous teams so they can respond adequately and take the proper decisions. Training can help leaders to deal with their biases.
Theoretical Implications
20 REFERENCES
Bantel, K., & Jackson, S. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition of the team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal. 10:107-124
Bass, B.M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. 3rd edition ed. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Manual: The multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bowers C.A., Pharmer, J.A., & Salas, E. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams, a meta-analysis. Small Groups Research. 31:305-327
Bunderson, J.S.2003. Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work groups: A Status Characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly. 48:557-591
Burgoon, J.K., Dunbar, N.E., & Sergin, C. 2002. Nonverbal influence. In J.P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.). The persuasion handbook; Developments in theory and practice (pp. 225-473). Thousand oaks, CA: sage.
Central bureau van de Statistiek, assessed on 21-02-2008, URL: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/table.asp?PA=71090ned
Christopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. 2008. Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 32: 65-73
Cox, T, Jr. 1991. The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executives. 5 (2): 34-47
DeDreu, C.K.W., & Van Kleef G.A. 2004. the influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology. 740: 909-319.
DiTomaso, N., & Hooijber, R. 1996. Diversity and the Demands of Leadership. Leadership
Quaterly. 7 (2): 163- 187
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. 1995. Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 31: 617- 626
Dunning, D., & Sherman, D.A. 1997. Stereotypes and tacit inference. Journal of Personality
21 Ebenbach, D.H., & Keltner, D. 1998. Power, emotion, and judgmental accuracy in social
conflict: Motivating the cognitive miser. Basic and Applied Social psychology. 20: 7-21 Fisher, P., Greitenmeyer, T., & Kastenmuller, A. 2007. What do we think about Muslims? The validity of westerners’ implicit theories about the associations between Muslims’ Religiosity, religious identity, aggressions potential, and attitudes toward terrorism.
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 10 (3): 373-382
Fiske, S.T. 2003. Controlling Other People: The Impact of Power on Stereotyping. American
Psychologist. 48(6): 621-628
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., Inesi, M.E., & Gruenfeld, D.H. 2006. Power and Perspectives Not taken. Psychological science. 17 (12): 1068-1074
Galisnky, A.D. & Moskowitz, G.B. 2000. Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and ingroup favouritism. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 78:708-724
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. 2005. Understanding and Managing Organizational
Behaviour. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey
Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003) A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly. 48: 202-239
Goodwin, S.A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S.T., & Yzerbut, V.Y. 2000. Power can bias Impression Processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group processes &
Intergroup relations. 3: 227-256
Guimond,S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & DuarteS. 2003. Does Social Dominance Generate Prejudice? Integrating Individuals and Contextual Determinants of Intergroup Cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (4): 697- 721
Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M. Julin, J.A., & Peyronnin, K. 1991. Some differences make a difference. Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions and turnover. Journal of applied Psychology. 76: 675- 689
22
effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204-61). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Jehn, K. 1995. A Multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40:256-282
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.
Kuo, C. 2004. Research on Impacts of team leadership on team effectiveness. The Journal of
American Academy of Business, Cambridge. 5 (1/2):266-277
Lau, D.C., & Murninghan, J.K. 1998. Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Compositional Dynamics of Organizational Groups. Academy of Management Review. 23 (2): 235-340
Lau, D.C., & Murnighan, J.K. 2005. Interactions within groups and subgroups: the effect of demographic faultlines. Academic Management Journal. 48: 645- 659
McLeod, P.L., & Label, S.A. 1992. The effects of ethic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings: 227- 231
Merton. R. 1948. The self-fulling prophesy. Antioch review, 8: 193-210.
Milliken, F.J., & Martens, L.L. 1996. Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management
Review. 21 (2): 402- 433
Mayo, M., Pastor, J.C., & Meindl, J.R. 1996. The effects of group heterogeneity on the self-perceives efficacy of group leaders. Leadership Quarterly. 7 (2): 265- 284
Miller, D.M., Felds, P.E.R., Kumar, A., & Oriz, R. 2000. Leadership and Organizational Vision In Managing a Multiethnic and Multicultural Project Team. Journal of
Management in engineering. 16 (6): 18-22
Moore, D.S., & McCabe, G.P. 2000. Introduction to the practice of statistics 4th edition,
W.H. freeman and Company: New York.
Murnighan, J.K., & Conlon, D.E. 1991. The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 165-186
23 Pratto, F., Sidanius,J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. 1994. Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 67:741- 763
Rink, F., & Ellemers, M.2007. Defining the common feature: Task-related differences as the basis for dyadic identity. British Journal of Social Psychology. 46:499-515
Rink, F., & Ellemers, M.2007. Diversity as a Basis for Shared Organizational Identity: The Norm Congruity Principle. British Journal of Management. 18:17-27
Rink, F. & Ellemers, M. 2007. The role of expectancies in accepting task-related diversity: do disappointment and lack of commitment stem from actual differences or violated expectancies? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 33: 842- 855
Rodriguez-Bailon, R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. 2000. Why do supervisors attend to negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception. European Journal of Social psychology. 30: 651-657
Sawyer, J.E., Houlette, M.A., & Yeagley, E.L. 2006. Decision performance and diversity structure: comparing faultlines in convergent, crosscut, and racially homogeneous groups. Organizational Behaviour and Decisions Processes. 99: 1-15
Steiner, L.D. 1972. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press
Stockdale, M.S., & Crosby, F.J. 2004. The Psychology and Management of Workplace
Diversity. Blackwell and Publish Ltd. Oxford
Stoker, J. 2008. Power in organisations. Working paper, University of Groningen
Tejeda, M.J., & Barry, U. 2001. The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadership Quaterly., 12: 31-52
Trope, Y. 1986. Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution.
Psychological Review. 93: 239- 257.
Trope, Y., Cohen, O., & Alfieri, T. 1991. Behavior identification as a mediator of dispositional inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61: 873- 883. Van Dijk, W. W., Zeelenberg, M., & van der Pligt, J. (2003). Blessed are those who expect
nothing: Lowering expectations as a way of avoiding disappointment. Journal of
Economic Psychology. 24:505-516.
Van Engen, M. L. & Vinkenburg, C. J. (2005). Transformationeel leiderschap en carrière maken; Sekseverschillen in consequenties van effectief leiderschap. Gedrag en
24 Van Knippenburg, 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. 80 (60): 1008-1022
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M.C. 2007. Work Group Diversity. Annual review of
Psychology. 58 (1): 515-541
Volkskrant Banen, assesed on 22-04-2008, URL:
http://www.volkskrantbanen.nl/actueel/dossiers/diversiteitsbarometer-2008/16380/werknemer-ziet-weinig-kleur-om-zich-heen
Watson, W.E., Johnson, L., & Zgourides, G.D. 2000. The influence of ethic diversity on leadership, group processes, and performance: an examination of learning teams.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 26(1): 1-16
Webber, S.S., & Donahue, L.M. 2001. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Management. 27: 141-162
25 APPENDIX 1: E-mail
Groningen, 09 juni 2008
Onderwerp: Hoe kijkt u aan tegen uw team?
Geachte heer/ mevrouw,
Mijn naam is Maaike Schmidt en ik volg de Master-opleiding Human Resource Management (HRM) aan de Faculteit Economie & Bedrijfskunde van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Voor mijn afstudeeronderzoek, onder begeleiding van dr. Floor Rink, ben ik op zoek naar managers die een vragenlijst willen invullen, dit zal maximaal 20 minuten van uw tijd vragen. Deze vragenlijst wordt anoniem en vertrouwelijk behandeld.
Waar gaat het om?
Mijn onderzoek betreft een onderzoek onder managers om te achterhalen hoe zij tegen hun team aankijken en hoe zij het functioneren van deze teams evalueren. We zijn geïnteresseerd in de mate waarin dit gevolgen heeft voor hun manier van leidinggeven. Om deze reden willen wij graag aan u vragen aan te geven wat U als manager belangrijk vindt bij het beoordelen van een team. Het antwoord op deze onderzoeksvraag zou gebruikt kunnen worden om beter in te spelen op de behoefte van managers (Bijvoorbeeld door het aanbieden van bepaalde HR-instrumenten zoals specifieke evaluatie trainingen).
Waarom benader ik u?
Om dit onderzoek tot een succes te maken ben ik op zoek naar 120 managers uit different organisaties in Nederland die verantwoordelijk zijn voor 1 of meerdere teams, en deze regelmatig evalueren. Uw mening is dus voor ons onderzoek essentieel.
Wat kunt u van mij verwachten?
Ik informeer u graag over de algemene resultaten en aanbevelingen van dit onderzoek. Indien u dit wenst, kunt u dit aan het einde van de vragenlijst aangeven.
26
Indien u nog vragen heeft, kunt u uiteraard contact met mij opnemen. Ik ben het beste bereikbaar via onderstaand e-mail adres.
Alvast heel hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking!
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Maaike Schmidt
27 APPENDIX 2: Pilot study; Diversity manipulation
Presented below are three different teams. How diverse do you think the teams are on a scale from 1- 10?
Team: 1
Fill in your response
↓
QUESTION A
How diverse do you think team 1 is, on a scale from 1-10? Not diverse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very diverse 10 TEAM: 2
Fill in your response
↓
QUESTION A
28
TEAM: 3
Fill in your response
↓
QUESTION A
29 APPENDIX 3: pilot study: Conflict manipulation
In organizations people work in teams that are responsible for reaching common goals.
Company X has created a selection committee because the company needs a lot of new people within a short period of time. Te selection committee exists of 4 members. What now follows, is a part of the conversation the selection committee members had with one another about choosing the right candidate for the next selection round.
Imagine that you are the leader of this team. How, then, would you evaluate this conversation?
After reading the script, please answer the questions based on your first and general impressions of the team.
The high/ low conflict script (see appendix 5 and 6 for the scripts)
Please, answer the following questions about the conversation you have just read, based on your general impressions and/or feelings.
Fill in your response
↓
Questions Not at all Average Very much A
How well do the team members get along with each other?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
How much disagreement is there among the team members?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30 APPENDIX 4: Team compositions
Homogeneous team; four Caucasian men
Homogeneous team: four Arabic men
Heterogeneous team; one Caucasian man, one Arabic man, one Asian man, one Negroid man
31 APPENDIX 5: High conflict script
The conversation between the 4 team members: A) That was the last candidate for this function.
B) [Surprised] That went quickly today.
C) Do you think?!
D) I think an early day home is also welcome.
C) Don’t say that to soon. We still have to make a choice about the best candidates and knowing [B] that can take some time.
B) [Irritated tone] What does that suppose to mean?
C) Well, most of the time you have another view on candidates than us.
B) That is good, isn’t it?! Because of that we can be critical.
A) [Sigh] I suppose so.
D) Lets have a look... The next round of the selection process consists of an assessment, so we have to select 4 candidates for the next round.
C) Are you sure that we have to select so many candidates for the next round? I think two candidates is more than enough. Do you know how expensive these assessments are!!!
32 C) There you have a point, but I still think the costs for an assessment are very high.
D) The costs for a wrong choice are even higher than the extra costs for another assessment.
C) [Not yet convinced] Hmm, all right.
A) Well let’s get started. Let we begin by saying everyone’s best 4 selected candidates. Without giving any argument by that we cannot influence each other. Well, [D] which 4 candidates do you think are the best?
D) I think the best candidates are 1, 4, 7, and 2.
C) I also have candidates 2, 4, 7, and I have candidate 3.
B) I have 3, 4 7, and 8.
A) I have selected candidates 2, 3, and 7.
C) Well, to summarise the results [looks at his notes]. We have: 4 votes for candidate 7
3 votes for candidates 2, 3, and 4 1 vote for candidates 1, and 8
So, I suggest to select the candidates 7, 2, 3, and 4 , since they have the most votes.
B) [Indignant] I don not agree with that!! I think candidate 2 absolutely does not fit the job.
D) [Jumpiness] Is it an idea to start with selecting the candidates we all agree on, and not with the candidates we do not agree on. By that we have already a first selection.
33 A) Fine.
C) All right.
D) Well, I think everyone agrees with candidate 7 or not?
A,B, C) Yes.
B) Great, than we have selected the first candidate to go to the assessment. Who agrees with candidates 3?
D) I do not agree with candidate 3... I think the candidate misses relevant work experience for the job.
C) I think the candidate does have the relevant work experience, and the candidate has followed the right traineeships for this job.
B) I see your point; the candidate does not have as much work experience as the other candidates, [convincing] however the candidate has the right papers, traineeships, and relevant working experiences. I also think that the candidate has a lot of work experience for his age.
D) [Hesitating] Maybe you are right. The candidate possesses the working experience we are looking for, however I think the candidate does not have much experience. I hope it will be enough for the job…
C) Who is the next candidate to make a decision about?
A) Lets have a look….According to me candidates 2, and 4.
D) And candidates 1, and 8, they have both 1 vote.
34
A) I. Since I think there are only 3 candidates that are suitable for the job. [Indifferent] however I will select candidate 4 as my fourth candidate. So, we are a step closer to the final selection.
B) You must choose that candidate only if you think it is a good candidate.
A) [Annoyed] I think he is good!! If the candidate is not good enough for the job, the assessment will make that clear.
D) I agree with that…so, we can move on to the next candidate.
C) [Sarcastic] [D] really wants to go home early today.….
C,A,B) Hahaha
D) You are completely right…
35 APPENDIX 6: low conflict script
The conversation between the 4 team members:
A) That was the last candidate for this function.
B) [Surprised] That went quick today.
C) Do you think? I found it a very hard day with all those conversations.
D) I do not mind an early day home.
C) I totally agree, I think everyone would like that after this long week.
B, A) Yes.
D) [Optimistic] Lets get started maybe we can go home early today.
B) Lets have a look... The next round of the selection process consists of an assessment, so we have to select 4 candidates for the next round.
C) Are you sure that we have to select so many candidates for the next round? I think two candidates is more than enough. Do you know how expensive these assessments are!!!
A) I agree with [B] to invite 4 candidates to do the assessment since not everyone will to the assessment. My experience is that when you invite 4 candidates generally 3 candidates will do the assessment. And you also want to choose otherwise you are obligated to take the 1
candidate that is left.
36 D) I suggest that everyone will give his top 4 of the best candidates, without any arguments since this can influence each other. If there are differences we can discuss this afterwards. [A] Which 4 candidates you think are the best?
A) I think the best candidates are 1,4,7, and 2.
C) I also selected candidate 2, and I selected candidates 3, 4, and 7.
B) I selected candidates 3, 4 7, and 8.
D) I selected candidates 2, 3, and 7.
B) To summarise [looks at his notes], there are: 4 votes for candidate 7
3 votes for candidates 2, 3, and 4 1 vote for candidates 1, and 8
C) Let first look at the candidates we all agree with. I think we all agree with candidates 7, or not?
A,B, C) Yes.
D) Great, candidate 7 is the first candidate that goes to the next round.
A) If [C] summary is good than have the 3 candidates 2, 3, and 4 all 3 votes. Is it an idea to select also these 3 candidates?
B) [Sarcastic] [A] really want to home quickly, however I think this goes to fast.
A) You are right, I was just kidding, but it was an idea or not?
C) Yes, it was certainly an idea, if this was not that important as it is.
37
C) [D] I saw you only selected 3 candidates, and was wondering why?
D) I only selected 3 candidates sine I think these three are really suitable for the job. For the fourth candidates I could not use between candidate 1 and 4, so I selected 3 candidates. Now, I see that you all selected candidate 4, is it an idea to select this candidate as well for the next round?
B) Are you sure??
D) [Explicit] yes. So, we have now 3 candidates selected for the next round, still 2 to go.
A) What is left? Candidates 2 and 3 have both 3 votes, and candidates 1 and 8 have both 1 vote.
B) I selected candidate 8, though I had the same as [D], I found only 3 candidates really good and selected candidate 8 to have 4 candidates. If no one else has candidate 8, I do not might if he does not go to the next round.
C) That goes very well!! So we only have left candidates 2, 3, and 1 over, [positive] that goes to the right direction.
D) Maybe we really can go home early today.
A) Let we do another voting round for the last 3 candidates?
D) That is a good idea.
C) I will take my notes again to see what the candidates strengths and weaknesses were. Just a moment please.
38 [Everyone looks at his notes]
39 APPENDIX 7: Questionnaire
Research: Evaluating Teams
This research is about how managers judge their team and what they think is important when judging their team.
The questionnaire will take a maximum of 20 minutes to fill in. Of course, your answers will be anonymous and treated confidentially.
The questionnaire consists of three parts. The questions in part 1 ask for general information about you and the organization you work for. Part 2 is about what you, as leader, think is important when managing your team. Part 3 is about how you would evaluate a fictional team if you were their leader.
The questionnaire consists of multiple-choice questions; please type your answer in column
A.
Part 1: General Information
Fill in your response
↓
Question A
What is your gender? Man
1
Woman 2 Do you have the Dutch
nationality?
Yes 1
No 2 What is your age? < 25 year
1 25-34 year 2 35-44 year 3 45-54 year 4 >54 year 5 On what level do you
manage?
Top management (For instance, director)
1
Middle management (For instance, location
manger) 2
Lower management (For instance, head of a
department) 3 On what level are you in
the organization, on a scale from 1 -10? Very low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Top 10 How diverse (diversity=
differences between employees based on ethnicity, nationality, and gender) is the organization you work for, on a scale from 1 – 10? Very low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Top 10
How would you describe the amount of power you have in the organization?
None 1 Little 2 Average 3 Much 4 Very much 5 How much influence do
you have in the organization? None 1 Little 2 Average 3 Much 4 Very much 5 To what degree do you
40
Part 2: What is your management style?
Part 2 of this questionnaire is about what you think is important in managing your team. Please answer the questions as accurately as possible.
Fill in your response
↓
To what extent do you agree with the propositions below?
Totally agree
Average Totally not agree A
I provide inspiration with my plans for the future
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I develop team thinking and team feeling among team members
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I manage by setting a good example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I always strive to maximize performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I show respect for personal feelings of others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I encourage others to regard their performance from various perspectives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I make clear to others what the rewards are for fulfilling requirements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I specify beforehand what the rewards for good work will be
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I tell others what is needed to get rewarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I make agreements with others about potential rewards for accomplishing goals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I closely monitor whether or not required standards are met
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I only intervene when it is absolutely necessary
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41
Part 3: Evaluating a team as outsider
In organizations people work in teams that are responsible for reaching common goals. Company X created a selection commission since the company needs a lot of new people in a short period. Te selection commission exist of 4 members (see their pictures below). I will give a part of the conservation the selection commission had about choosing the right candidate for the next round.
Image that you are the leader of this team. How would you as leader evaluate this conversation?
After reading the script answer the question based on your initial first impression and your general impression of the team. All questions need to be answered on a scale of 1-7.
The script
Answer now the question about the conversation the 4 commission members had with each other, based on your general impressions and/or feelings.
Fill in your Response
↓
Based on your first impression, to whatextent do you think the team members…..
Not at all Average Very much A
Will easily bond with each other?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Will quickly bond with each other? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Will feel comfortable with one another? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Will complement each other? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Will be able to get along with each other on a personal level?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
are equal to one another? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will enjoy working with each other? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
trust each other? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42 Based on your first impression, to what
extent do you think the team members…..
Not at all Average Very much A
will not get along with each other on a personal level?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will often agree on which points are important?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will often have different views about things that need to be discussed?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will have differing views on the work they perform?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will have arguments about who they believe to be the best candidate?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will disagree about non-work related (personal/social) issues?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will be affected by miscommunication about the task?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will become upset about non-work related issues?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Based on your first impression, how much do you think the team….
Not at all Average Very much A
…will be successful? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43
How much do you think under mentioned characteristics are applicable on Moroccan people, based on your first impression?
Fill in your Response ↓ To what extent do you think the
characteristics presented below are applicable to Moroccan people?
Not at all Average Very much A
44 How much do you think under mentioned characteristics are applicable on Dutch people, based on
your first impression? Fill in your
Response ↓ To what extent do you think the
characteristics presented below are applicable to Dutch people?
Not at all Average Very much A
45
Fill in your Response ↓
To what extent do you agree with the statements given below
Not at all Average Very much A
It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom in society
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Increased social equality would be a good thing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This is the end of the questionnaire.
Thank you very much for your corporation!!
Do you want to be informed about the general results and the recommendations of this study?
Yes No
46 Yes, I would like to be informed about the general results and the recommendation of this study.
My e-mail address is:___________________________________________
This e-mail address will only be used to send you the general results and recommendations of this study.
47 APPENDIX 8: Result Graphs
Appendix 8a: Expected cohesion: Interaction between Team Composition and Level of Conflict
48 Appendix 8c: The expected cohesion in the low conflict condition: Interaction between Team Composition and Charismatic Leadership Style
49
Appendix 8e: The expected cohesion in the low conflict condition: interaction between Team Composition and Perceived Power
