AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY ON THE PERCEPTION OF DIVERSITY USING AN INSIDER PERSPECTIVE
March 28, 2008
WILLY VAN DER ES Student number: 1503871
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc Human Resource Management
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
The challenge for organizations is to effectively manage diverse teams (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992; Williams, Parker & Turner, 2007), because the workforce is becoming more diverse. The increase of diversity within teams offers on the one hand an opportunity because the diverse perspectives within teams can increase the creativity of the team. On the other hand, more variety within teams can lead to lower team integration and higher dissatisfaction and turnover (Milliken & Martins, 1996). To improve the group processes and performances of varied teams, there is more than forty years of research on the effects of diversity (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). However, the results of these studies are still ambiguous (Jackson, Joshi & Erhardt, 2003; Webber & Donahue, 2001; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). We propose that these confusing findings are the result of the method and focus of this past research. Most diversity studies focus on the examination of one diversity characteristic, for example age, in relation to the group processes and performances of a team. Nevertheless, studies, examining the same variable, differ in their results. This indicates that there are other factors that affect the results. Individuals differ in how they perceive diversity. However, we do not know which diversity characteristics people perceive in their team and thus which attributes influenced the results. This is the result of the lack of attention to the role of perceptions in the studies of diversity. Especially the perceived differences are a major cause for differences in work-related outcomes (e.g. Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998; Lawrence, 1997; Riordan, 2000; Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2005). Therefore we will study which characteristics people perceive of their team members.
values which influence people’s personality and behaviour, but are not immediately observable (Harrison et al., 1998).
Moreover, the studied surface-level and deep-level diversity variables are chosen by a researcher, which is called the outsider perspective. The disadvantage of studies adopting an outsider approach is that the employee may not perceive the characteristic the researcher has chosen. Research of Harrison et al. (2002) shows, for example, that deep-level variables become more important over time than surface-deep-level variables when members collaborate in a team. This shows that the surface-level variables may not be perceived by employees who work together for a longer period of time. This example illustrates that the characteristics examined in the past, may not be perceived by employees. This corresponds with the opinion of other researchers (e.g. Harrison et al., 1998; Lawrence, 1997; Riordan, 2000; Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2005) who emphasize the importance of focusing on perceived differences instead of actual differences. Team members judge each other on what is relevant and salient for them in a certain context and this influences the commitment and performances of a team. By focusing only on objective differences it is not possible to map all the relevant differences between team members (Oosterhof, 2007). Thereby, some differences may be more important because characteristics can differ in the degree of salience for an individual (Hobman, Bordia & Gallois, 2004). By studying perceptions it is possible to incorporate the salience of characteristics.
The importance of perception is also acknowledged in the social categorisation (Turner, 1987), the social identity (Turner, 1982) and similarity/attraction theories (Byrne, 1971) which researchers have used to explain the outcomes of their studies. All these theories state that people, when comparing team members, use salient characteristics to form social categories. However, the researchers did not explicitly explore which characteristics were perceived in a team and this probably influenced their results. It is helpful to find out which characteristics of team members people perceive as salient to fully understand the effects of diversity. These perceived indicators of diversity can be used in future research to study the effects of diversity.
related to the existing diversity literature. We will use an insider perspective to explore what team members themselves perceive. Team members can mention as many characteristics as they perceive. Consequently, these perceived characteristics will be clustered using the concept mapping technique of Jackson and Trochim (2002). A clear overview of different types of perceived differences in teams is given by clustering these characteristics based on similarities, and by labelling these clusters with labels created by the respondents themselves. The perceptions of the employees will subsequently be linked with dimensions described in the diversity literature. In the following paragraphs we will discuss how diversity and perception of diversity are related, and which dimensions are generally used in the diversity literature.
THEORY Diversity and perception
“Diversity refers to differences between individuals on any attribute that may lead to the perception that another person is different from self” (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004: 1008). Although this definition explicitly addresses the importance of perceptions of diversity, research to date has not specifically looked into the perceptions of diversity.
In a similar way, the social categorisation (Turner, 1987) and social identity theory (Turner, 1982) describe that people try to maintain a high level of self-esteem by comparing themselves with others. People classify themselves and others into social categories (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Besides these theories, the similarity/attraction theory of Byrne (1971) assumes that people tend to like and to attract to other people who they believe have the same attitudes. These theories describe that people perceive differences. Past research showed that during the categorization process people frequently use characteristics that are salient and/or visible (Stangor, Lynch, Duan & Glass, 1992; Turner, 1982; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
influence perceptions of diversity. The goal of this study is to explore which characteristics people use when they perceive and compare the members of their team.
We will use two different approaches to perform our study. The first approach is the perceptual approach which states that not the actual differences but the perception of these differences should be studied (e.g. Riordan, 2000; Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2005). The advantage of this approach is that it acknowledges that differences can vary in the degree of importance or salience. The second approach is the typological approach in which researchers have developed dimensions and typologies that classify different types of differences into taxonomies. An example of a dimension, which is used in several taxonomies, is the distinction between visible and non-visible differences (e.g. Pelled, 1996). A disadvantage of both these two approaches is that they adopt an outsider perspective; the characteristic that is examined depends on the choice of the researcher. In this study, we use both the perceptual and typological approach with an insider perspective; we will explore what employees themselves perceive.
We will use the perceptual approach to study the diversity variables that team members perceive in a team. Now that we use the insider perspective for this study, we also want to explore how the perceived characteristics relate to the existing diversity literature. We will therefore use the typological approach. We will ask employees to rate the perceived characteristics on the existing dimensions. By using this insider perspective, the predictive power of diversity will be increased (Harrison et al., 1998, 2002; Riordan, 2000; Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2005), because people can perceive and experience differences other than those that researchers examined in the past. It will show what kind of differences are dominant and salient for team members in work settings (Mannix & Neale, 2005). These findings will be useful for managing diverse teams.
Dimensions of diversity
diversity literature. The following subparagraphs describe the generally used dimensions of the diversity literature, accompanied by the definitions that we will use in this study.
Visibility A broadly examined dimension is surface-level (demographic) versus deep-level (attitudinal) diversity (Harrison et al., 1998). This terminology is similar to the observable or readily detectable attributes and less visible or underlying attributes of Jackson and colleagues (1995), Milliken and Martins (1996), and Pelled (1996). Besides this terminology, surface-level diversity is described as ‘demographic diversity’ by O’Reilly et al (1989) and as ‘social category diversity’ by Jehn et al (1999). The most studied observable attributes are age, gender and race (Harrison et al., 1998). They have in common that they are almost immediately observable, generally immutable and measurable in simple and valid ways (Harrison et al., 1998; Jackson et al., 1995; Milliken & Martins, 1996). These visible differences may evoke responses that are influenced by biases, prejudices or stereotypes (Milliken & Martins, 1996). This means that people use these visible attributes to put someone in a social category (Tsui & Gutek, 1999).
People do not only differ in characteristics that are visible. Attitudes, beliefs and values influence people’s personality and behaviour but are not immediately observable, and are therefore called deep-level attributes (Harrison et al., 1998). Jackson and colleagues (1995) have formulated a similar term, ‘underlying attributes’, which includes attitudes, values, knowledge and skills. Next to that, Milliken and Martins (1996) wrote about ‘less visible attributes’, which include functional background, education, technical abilities and tenure in the organization. The definition of visibility that will be used in this study is: the degree in which the characteristic is immediately (at first sight) observable. Therefore, it is not necessary to know the person.
demographic attributes were important for the changes in the workforce for that time. The variables she discovered to be highly job-related were education, functional background and organizational and group tenure because these reflect task perspectives and technical skills. Only group tenure is classified as highly visible. “Job-relatedness is an important property because it determines whether a particular type of diversity constitutes an increase in a group’s total pool of task-related skills, information, and perspectives” (Simons, Pelled & Smith, 1999: 662-663).
Jackson et al (1995, 1996) extended the distinction between readily detectable attributes and underlying attributes by dividing these two categories into two subcategories namely task-related and relations-oriented attributes. Task-related attributes are linked with the team objectives. Examples of task-related underlying attributes are knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs), and experience. Examples of task-related readily detectable attributes are department/unit membership, organizational tenure and education level. The term that will be used in this research is work-relatedness, because both definitions of Jackson et al. (1995) and Pelled (1996) are related to work. The definition of work-relatedness that will be used in this study is: the degree in which the characteristic is important for the execution of work.
diversity that we use in this study is: the degree in which the characteristic states something about the person’s knowledge background, skills and/or perspectives.
Relations-related diversity Members in a team have relationships with each other, for example as colleagues. Jackson et al. (1995) described in their study that relations-oriented attributes are linked with social relationships in general. We would like to know which characteristics people believe are related to a person’s relationship with others. Jackson et al. (1995) subdivided the relations-oriented attributes in readily detectable attributes as for instance sex, age and ethnicity and underlying attributes, such as socio-economic status, attitudes, values and personality. The definition of relations-related diversity that will be used in this study is: the degree in which the characteristic states something about the person’s relationships with other people.
Value-related diversity People can differ in their values and goals, which can influence the group interaction. Similarities of values will improve the interpersonal relations within a group (Jehn et al., 1999). Dissimilarities, also called value diversity, can lead to decreased member satisfaction and commitment to the group (Mannix & Neale, 2005). “Value diversity occurs when members of a workgroup differ in terms of what they think the group’s real task, goal, target, or mission should be” (Jehn et al., 1999: 745). Value diversity is also one of the categories of McGrath, Berdahl and Arrow (1995) and Mannix and Neale (2005). McGrath et al. (1995) labelled the category as ‘values, beliefs and attitudes (VBA)’ whereas Mannix and Neale (2005) limited it to ‘differences in values or beliefs’, with cultural background and ideological beliefs as diversity variables. To find out which characteristics team members perceive as related to a person’s opinion and values we use the following definition of value-related diversity in this study: the degree in which the characteristic states something about the person’s opinion, beliefs and values.
“personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behaviour and thought”. The most dominant personality typology is the Big Five, in which five characteristics are distinguished (McCrae & Costa, 1989). These personality characteristics are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and intellectual autonomy. McGrath et al. (1995) made a separate category for the personality, cognitive and behavioural styles (PCB) of a person. Mannix and Neale (2005) called this category ‘personality differences consisting of cognitive style, affective disposition and motivational factors’. To discover which characteristics team members perceive as personality-related diversity, the following definition will be used in this study: the degree in which the characteristic states something about the person’s personality characteristics.
Status-related diversity Another dimension which is not very common in diversity research is the status in the work group’s embedding organization, described by McGrath et al. (1995). Jackson et al. (2003) describe in their SWOT analysis, of research on team and organizational diversity, that the ignorance of status and specific skills is a weakness of diversity research. This is regretful because the status characteristics theory of Berger, Fisek, Norman and Zelditch (1977), which is based on ‘performance expectations’, describes that people use the ‘status’ or social meaning of characteristics of the person to form their performance expectation of their team members (Bunderson, 2003). This shows that the perception of status should not be ignored. Bunderson (2003) labelled task experience, task-relevant training and education as status cues. Besides these specific cues, he labelled visible physical characteristics and social category differences as gender, ethnicity, age or attractiveness as more general status cues. Interesting to know is which of the generated diversity characteristics are perceived as status-related. The definition of status-related diversity in this study will be: the degree in which the characteristic states something about the person’s status or position with regard to others.
mutability. For example, sex or race cannot be changed, but values or skills are more variable and easier to change (McGrath et al., 1995). Which of the characteristics are perceived as mutable? And which of these are the same as those described by McGrath et al. (1995)? To find the answers to these questions we use the following definition of mutability in this study: the degree to which the characteristic of a person is or can be subject to change under the influence of internal or external circumstances.
Perceived diversity characteristics related to dimensions
METHODS Research setting
This research is the second phase of research on perception of diversity. A group of 188 people participated in the first phase, and to reflect the original intent of this group and to increase the validity, this research made use of the same group of participants. All participants are working for a company specialised in the mental health care, located in the North of the Netherlands. These employees work in teams which, on average, consist of ten nurses. The team members have a shared responsibility for a group of mental disordered patients. The nurses of each team work together in different shifts.
Participants
A group of 212 people, divided into 20 teams, were approached to participate in the first phase of the diversity research. Finally, there were 188 respondents who filled in a questionnaire. The response percentage is 89%. The group of 188 respondents consisted of 87 men and 101 women, most of them were Dutch. The mean age was 39.93 years (min= 20, max= 62, SD= 10.13), the mean organisation tenure was 128.95 months (SD= 91.21) and the mean team tenure was 59.80 months (SD= 59.78).
Procedure
Part 1: categorizing diversity characteristics
Participants All 188 participants of the first phase of this research were informed about this second phase of the research by a letter in which they were asked to participate in this follow-up research. In the letter was explained that this research needed people willing to voluntarily categorize the diversity characteristics resulting from the first phase. 16 people from this group were willing to collaborate and performed the categorization. Because of the anonymity of the respondents, the characteristics of these people are unknown.
Part 2: rating perception on diversity dimensions
Participants For the second part, a group of 78 respondents plus 10 diversity experts were approached to fill in an online questionnaire. Eventually there were 15 participants consisting of 8 respondents of the first phase of this research, from this point on called ‘employees’ and 7 diversity experts. The response rate for the employees was 10% and for the diversity experts 70%.
The group of employees consisted of 4 men and 4 women. The age in this group varied from 26 to 55 years, with an average age of 44 years (SD = 10.57). The group of diversity experts consisted of 4 men and 3 women. In this group the average age was 32.71 years varying from 24 to 51 years (SD= 9.53).
RESULTS Sorting task
16 respondents performed the sorting task. They individually formed, according to one’s own views, clusters of the 79 diversity characteristics. The amount of clusters varied from 3 to 14 clusters, with a mean number of 6.38 clusters (SD= 2.66).
Multidimensional scaling
The purpose of the sorting task is to make a final cluster solution that best represents the clusters performed by the sorters. For each sorter a 79 x 79 binary square matrix was created which represented the clusters of the sorter. These 16 individual matrices were joined into one aggregated matrix, which was the input for a MDS PROXSCAL analysis in SPSS. This MDS analysis was performed to determine the number of dimensions that best represent the data. As seen, in figure 1, the most significant improvement of Normalized Raw Stress was from a two- to a three-dimensional solution. Therefore a three-three-dimensional solution will be used to interpret the results.
---Insert Figure 1 about here
---Cluster analysis
judgement, we decided eventually that a 5 cluster solution, according to the k-mean analysis, was most appropriate. Figure 2 shows the clusters on the 3 dimensions.
---Insert Figure 2 about here
---As can be seen in these figures, some clusters are opposites on a dimension - for example dimension 1, where cluster 4 is on the opposite side of cluster 3. Cluster 4 contains characteristics related to working with colleagues, and cluster 3 contains more personal characteristics. Therefore, dimension 1 can be labelled as ‘association with other people versus association with self’. On dimension 2 there are also opposite clusters visible. Cluster 1 contains characteristics related to the work, whereas cluster 2 contains characteristics related to the person. Therefore dimension 2 can be labelled as ‘work versus person related characteristics’. There are five clusters and already four of them are used to describe dimension 1 and dimension 2. This means that the cluster structure does not give enough information and the data is insufficient to label dimension 3.
Labels of clusters
with the Euclidean distances. Based on the labels of the respondents and our own interpretation, each cluster got a name. Table 1 shows the final cluster solution consisting of the clusters together with their characteristics and their labels.
---Insert Table 1 about here
---Diversity dimensions
The 15 respondents rated the 79 diversity characteristics on 8 different diversity dimensions. These respondents consisted of two different groups, employees and diversity experts. To compare the results of the two groups, we performed a non parametric Mann Whitney test. A t-test was not possible, because it requires a normal sample partitioning with a minimum of 30 cases (De Vocht, 1999), which is not the case of this research. A Mann Whitney test is a good alternative, because it requires only ordinal observations (De Vocht, 1999). Table 2 shows the number of significant differences between the groups on each dimension. The results of the employees serve as a starting point for drawing conclusions, because this research takes the insider perspective to understand the perceptions of team members.
---Insert Table 2 about here
characteristics. This can be confirmed by the characteristics wherein the two groups differ. The diversity experts ascribe the same characteristics to a dimension as researchers do, which can be seen in Appendix B. The characteristics that are bold in Appendix B are those that diversity experts ascribe more to the specific dimension than employees do. Employees do not know the original dimensions and their characteristics, which may be the reason for the differences.
Dimensions 5 to 8 are not extensively described in the literature. Thus diversity experts may have less knowledge of these dimensions and are therefore just as knowledgeable as the employees, which may result in more similarities between employees and diversity experts.
Characteristics most frequently mentioned by employees (and their rating scores on the dimensions by employees and diversity experts)
Every employee was allowed to mention as many diversity characteristics as they wanted to, in order to describe the differences they perceived between their colleagues. Some are mentioned more often than others. Table 3 shows the top 10 most frequently mentioned characteristics by the employees. Additionally, the table shows on which dimension the characteristic best fits according to the employees and diversity experts. The number between brackets indicates the average score on that dimension. The range of the scale was from 1 ‘is not applicable on this dimension’ to 7 ‘is totally applicable on this dimension’.
---Insert Table 3 about here
Besides the differences in relations-relatedness, table 3 illustrates that employees appoint these top 10 characteristics to four dimensions whereas diversity experts appoint six dimensions.
Perceived characteristics related to dimensions
We asked employees to rate the characteristics on several dimensions because we want to study the relationship between the perceived characteristics and the existing literature on dimensions of diversity. Table 4 shows the top 10 characteristics on each dimension, accompanied by the rating scores on the dimensions, according to the employees. We can use these scores to compare the perceptions with the existing diversity literature and to extend the information about dimensions from the employees’ point of view. For example, gender which is labelled by several researchers as a visible characteristic (e.g. Harrison et al. 1998), is not rated by all employees as totally visible, because the average score is less than 7 ‘is totally applicable on this dimension’. The table also shows that the variable ‘education/knowledge’ is mentioned three times. It shows that ‘education/knowledge’ is visible in the top 10 of the dimensions information-related characteristics, status-information-related characteristics and mutable characteristics. The dimensions that are not extensively described in the literature are the status-, personality-and value-diversity dimensions. Table 4 presents which characteristics are most ascribed to these dimensions by employees.
---Insert Table 4 about here
---DISCUSSION Clusters of perceived diversity characteristics
as they perceived when they compared their colleagues. Finally, there were 79 different characteristics generated which were then grouped together by 16 respondents in 5 clusters according to the concept mapping technique of Jackson and Trochim (2002). These clusters are: ‘work-related characteristics’, ‘personal factors’, ‘personality
characteristics’, ‘characteristics related to working with colleagues (in a team)’ and
‘KSAO’s Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Other Characteristics’. These clusters are graphically represented on a 3 dimensional map. 2 Of the 3 dimensions can be labelled as followed: ‘association with other people versus association with self’, and ‘work versus person related characteristics’.
The names of the clusters are related to non-visible differences, which connects with the new paradigm of diversity research; the study of deep-level variables. In the past, diversity research only studied visible demographic variables, such as age, sex, and race (Harrison et al. 2002). The characteristics age and sex can only be retrieved in cluster 2, ‘personal factors’. Race is not perceived and therefore not mentioned by team members. Another surface-level variable, studied to a less extent, is organizational tenure (e.g. Jackson et al., 1996). This variable is not explicitly mentioned by employees. However we find one corresponding variable, which is time of collaboration, ascribed to cluster 4 ‘characteristics related to working with colleagues (in a team)’. To conclude, especially cluster 2, ‘personal factors’, contains demographic variables. This cluster consists of variables that all together form a notion of a person. Besides surface-level variables, there are also deep-level variables that are part of this cluster.
cognitive style, affective disposition and motivational factors’. This demonstrates that the cluster ‘personality characteristics’, created by employees, corresponds with the literature.
The other deep-level diversity clusters also show similarities with the dimensions described in the literature. The cluster ‘related characteristics’ connects with work-related diversity research (e.g. Pelled, 1996; Jackson et al. 1995, 1996). The cluster ‘characteristics related to working with colleagues (in a team)’ connects with relations-related diversity research of Jackson et al (1995). Our data focuses on relationships with colleagues, whereas relations-related diversity aims at social relationships in general. The cluster ‘Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Other characteristics’ contains all deep-level variables, which are used for the term job specification (Noe, 2003). These KSAO’s are not directly observable, only when individuals perform the tasks, duties and responsibilities of the job.
The cluster ‘personal factors’ is difficult to compare with the existing diversity literature. This cluster contains a mix of surface-level and deep-level variables, which all together give a short description of a person. We did not find such a mixed cluster in the literature, because research mainly separated surface-level and deep-level variables. Our results show that employees prefer a cluster that gives an overview of a person. In addition, employees do not make a distinction between visible and non-visible characteristics.
The variety of different deep-level characteristics and the labels of the clusters indicate that especially deep-level variables are important markers for diversity for team members. This may be the result of the time that team members have cooperated. Harrison et al. (1998, 2002) studied the role of time in the perception of surface- and deep-level variables. They argue that deep-level variables become more important over time than surface-level variables. The fundamental medium in this process is information (Harrison et al., 1998). The longer people work together, the more interactions take place and the more (interpersonal) information is exchanged (Harrison et al., 1998). The results show that team members perceive characteristics that are related to team cooperation and information sharing. Especially cluster 4, ‘characteristics related to working with
example team involvement, work involvement, degree of consultation with colleagues, way of communicating, way of giving and handling feedback and cooperation.
Besides the variety of level variables, the results also show that the deep-level variables are mentioned more often than surface-deep-level variables. There were 79 generated characteristics and we formulated a top 10 of the most frequently mentioned characteristics. The top 10 exists only of deep-level variables, except number 8 ‘age’.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the perceived characteristics of the employees is that demographic variables, those that have been studied the most in the past, are hardly perceived in contrast to deep-level variables. Personality is thereby the most important marker of diversity, according to team members.
Perceptions related to diversity dimensions
The second part of this research consisted of the comparison of the perceptions of employees with diversity experts and the relation of the perceived characteristics to the existing diversity literature. The inputs for the comparison and relation to diversity dimensions were the 79 generated diversity characteristics from the first part of this research.
status-related characteristics and mutable characteristics. A reason for the less significant differences could be that diversity experts may have less knowledge of these dimensions and therefore the diversity experts are just as knowledgeable as the employees on these dimensions.
That knowledge of diversity literature influences the answers of the employees and diversity experts is also visible in the second comparison of opinions between employees and diversity experts. In part one of this study the top 10 most frequently mentioned characteristics by employees was formulated. We examined how these 10 characteristics were rated on the dimensions by employees and diversity experts. Of each of the 10 characteristics, we selected the dimensions with the highest score. Subsequently, we compared the dimensions of the two groups. It appeared that 7 of the 10 characteristics were differently rated on the dimensions by the two groups. It is obvious that three of these characteristics, ‘humour’, ‘cooperation’ and ‘good fellowship’, were relations-related according to the diversity experts. Employees labelled none of the 10 characteristics as relations-related. They perceived ‘cooperation’ and ‘good fellowship’ as work-related and ‘humour’ as personality-related. This demonstrates that employees subscribe more characteristics to work than to relationships. This outcome may be the result of the character of the employees’ work, which is relations-related. Another striking result of this comparison is the use of the dimensions. There are four different dimensions listed in the top 10 by employees and six dimensions by diversity experts. This use of dimensions shows that employees and diversity experts differ in knowledge of diversity literature. Employees may have less knowledge of the dimensions and specifically the term ‘relations-related’ compared to diversity experts, which may be the reason for not using the dimension ‘relations-related’. This lack of knowledge may have also forced employees to restrict themselves to use less dimensions. Further research should bear out this statement.
Martins, 1996; Harrison et al., 1998). It showed that employees perceive a lot of the 79 generated characteristics as visible. Most of these characteristics are labelled as non-visible by researchers. Examples of characteristics that are labelled as non-non-visible but are perceived as visible by employees are ‘pose’, ‘social skills’ and ‘humour’. These differences in opinion may be the result of the time that these employees work together. Studies of Harrison et al. (1998, 2002) showed that the longer people work together, the more non-visible characteristics are perceived. Because of the high team tenure it could be that employees perceive these non-visible characteristics as visible. This means that employees give another meaning to the word visibility. For researchers visibility means that it should be immediately observable (Harrison et al., 1998; Jackson et al., 1995; Milliken & Martins, 1996). For employees visibility may mean the degree in which they see and thereby perceive a characteristic, detached from time and first notice. Further research is necessary to explore what employees understand by visibility. If further research demonstrates that employees and researchers give the same meaning to the word visibility, then closer inquiry on the characteristics is necessary. It is possible that employees and researchers give another meaning to the characteristics, which leads to the different outcomes of the rating process on the dimension ‘visibility’.
employees, ambitions, education/knowledge, assertive, role in the team, patient approach, colleague approach, degree of consultation with colleagues, skills, way of giving and handling feedback and way of communicating. These can be labelled as specific status cues according to Bunderson (2003). The more general status cues, for example gender, ethnicity or age, are not the most important status-related characteristics according to employees. This means that employees perceive status in relation to their work situation. The top 10 of ‘mutable characteristics’ can be considered as related to work, which are according to the employees, work approach, degree of consultation with colleagues, handling administrative tasks, knowledge of target group, ability to reflect, education/knowledge, handling work pressure, aggression handling patients, assertive and patient approach. Striking is the characteristic ‘assertive’ in this line of mutable characteristics. Assertiveness is a personality characteristic and an indicator of extraversion of the Five Factor model of Personality (McCrea & John, 1992). The Five Factor model is a trait approach which states that personality traits are stable over time and different situations (Carver & Scheier, 1996). Other research showed that personality is not stable over time; consequently there is still a discussion about the consistency of personality characteristics (Sloore & Rossi, 2003). Our results show that assertiveness is a mutable characteristic according to employees.
Limitations
The results show some interesting findings concerning perceptions of diversity which are important for both theoretical and practical implications. Before these are discussed, it is important to discuss the limitations of this research which may serve as starting points for future research.
work is less relations-oriented or is part of another sector, it could have resulted in other characteristics. Besides the relations-oriented kind of work, the members within these teams depend on each other for the care of a group of patients. This makes it necessary for team members to share information and knowledge to accomplish their goals. This dependency enhances intergroup relations by forming a group identity (Bacharach, Bamberger & Vashdi, 2005). When team members are less dependent, there is less interpersonal contact which may increase the perception of visible characteristics. These perceptions can lead to the use of stereo types (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Future research should verify this statement.
Next to the context, tenure also influences the perception process. The average organisation tenure of the employees is 129 months and the average team tenure is 60 months. As described before, the longer people work together, the more deep-level variables are perceived (Harrison et al. 1998, 2002). The results show that most perceived characteristics are deep-level variables, which is probably the result of the high average team and organisation tenure. Therefore, in future research it is interesting to study the influence of tenure by performing the same research in teams with lower team tenure.
Besides the limitations on the content of this study, there are also some methodical shortcomings. We used a questionnaire to examine the perceptions of employees. With this method it is not possible to gather more specific information. By taking an interview after the questionnaire, it is possible to acquire more information about some of the prominent or striking answers. By using two different methods the value of the answers will increase. The results of an interview may be useful for comparison with theories that describe how people compare each other (Turner, 1982, 1987) or are attracted to people who they believe have the same attitudes (Byrne, 1971).
the studies of implicit association (Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998). There might be a difference in what people say and what they do. By observing people, it is possible to explore how people associate with other people and to explore the unconsciousness. The cluster analysis of the 79 generated characteristics is based on the opinion of 16 sorters, which meets the requirements of the method of Jackson & Trochim (2002). These 16 sorters have voluntarily performed the categorisation task, which can lead to selection bias.
Future research
The discussion of the limitations has led to possibilities for future research. As described above, the context plays an important role in the perception process (Milliken & Martins, 1996). To generalise the results, this research should be performed in different kinds of organisations. For instance an organisation with less relations-oriented kind of work and with teams where members are less dependent on each other. Another characteristic that can influence the perception process is the time of cooperation (Harrison et al. 1998, 2002). To study the influence of tenure, it would be preferable to perform this study in teams with lower team tenure and compare these results with the results of this study.
We did not study the variables that are part of the team, for example the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the team members on sex, age or education. In future research it is meaningful to study these variables and their influence on the perception process.
To increase the validity, a combination of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies should be used. This makes results less dependent on a single measure moment. A longitudinal design makes it possible to study the perceptions over a longer period of time, which is important because perceptions can change over time (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998).
Theoretical implications
Several researchers emphasized the importance of the perception of differences instead of the focus on actual differences (e.g. Harrison et al., 1998; Riordan, 2000; Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2005). We used an insider perspective to study the perception of team members. This insider approach made it possible to map all the characteristics and differences that team members perceive in their team, and therefore to better understand diversity. It showed that not only visible characteristics but mainly deep-level variables were perceived, making these important markers for diversity. The outcomes of this research have both theoretical and methodical implications for the diversity literature. First, the results are important for the diversity literature because perceptions are acknowledged to play an important role in a team but have not been studied till now. The theories of social categorization (Turner, 1987), social identity (Turner, 1982) and similarity/attraction (Byrne, 1971) are invoked in the past to explain the role of perception in the studies of diversity. However the researchers did not explore which characteristics influenced their results. The theories describe that salient or visible characteristics are used for social categorization (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). This research offers insight into which characteristics are actually perceived as salient in a team. The two characteristics most frequently mentioned, and therefore salient, are personality and work approach. Besides studying the salient characteristics, we linked the perceived characteristics with the existing diversity literature on dimensions of diversity. We extended the information from the employees’ point of view on dimensions that are studied to a less extent. It concerns the dimensions of ‘value-related diversity’, ‘status-related diversity’, ‘personality-‘status-related diversity’ and the ‘mutability of characteristics’.
Second, in this study we used the insider perspective combined with a categorization task, which resulted in outcomes that reflect the perceptions of employees, something that has not been achieved in the past. Therefore this method proved its validity to study perceptions of individuals. Thereby this method is a good alternative for the more traditional outsider perspective, in which the characteristic to examine depends on the preference of the researcher.
The results of this study offer insight into the characteristics that are perceived in teams and are therefore important markers for diversity, according to employees. The perceived characteristics can be used in future research as input for the studies of work-related outcomes.
Practical implications
To manage diversity at work, it is important to take into account the perceptions of differences (Hobman et al., 2004). The results of this study illustrate which characteristics are important for team members. It shows that age, gender and ethnicity, the original features of diversity, are not the most important markers of diversity. Employees perceive especially deep-level variables, making these important markers for diversity. For managers it is important to take into account these perceptions. Perception is part of the inner system of a person and is therefore difficult to change. However, the way people respond and cope with these perceived characteristics can be changed, for instance by means of training. The most important marker of diversity in this research is personality, according to the team members. A practical implication of this characteristic is to use a personality inventory, such as the Big Five, to detect the personality of each team member. Through such an inventory the team members have a better understanding of someone’s personality which may improve the cooperation and commitment within a team. The second most important feature of diversity is work approach. To decrease the differences in work approach between team members and to increase the respect to each other, it is important to speak appreciatively of a person’s work approach and to discuss the different work techniques. The discussion of the differences within a team will improve the team cooperation and commitment and therefore the work related outcomes of a team.
Conclusion
Organisations face the challenge of working with teams that become more diverse, because the workforce is becoming more diverse. It is necessary to understand diversity and to manage diversity to make effectively use of teams. Perceptions plays an important role in the group functioning and thus influence the work-related outcomes. Therefore, we studied which characteristics people perceive of their team members. To diminish the differences in a team and to improve the team cooperation and commitment, these perceived characteristics should be open for discussion.
This study shows that mainly deep-level variables are perceived and that personality and work approach are the most frequently perceived characteristics by employees. These characteristics can therefore be considered as most important markers of diversity. The results of this study make it possible for future research to examine how these perceived characteristics influence the work-related outcomes of a team.
Another conclusion that can be drawn from our results, namely that different ratings were given to the dimensions, is that employees and diversity experts differ in their knowledge of diversity. The ‘visibility’ dimension needs further examination because employees and diversity experts differ significantly in their opinion on the characteristics that belong to this dimension.
To conclude, non-visible differences are highly perceived and thus the new focus of diversity research should be on the perceptions of diversity which increases the
REFERENCES
Afifi, A.A., & Clark, V. 1996. Computer-aided multivariate analysis (3rd ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.
Allport, G.W. 1961. Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P.A., & Vashdi, D. 2005. Diversity and homophily at work: supportive relations among white and African-American peers. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 619-644.
Bantel, K., & Jackson S. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition of the team make the difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10: 107-124.
Barsade, S.G., Ward, A.J., Turner, J.D.F., & Sonnenfeld, J.A. 2000. To your heart’s content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 802-836.
Berger, J., Fisek, M.H., Norman, R.Z., & Zelditch, M. Jr. 1977. Status characteristics and social interaction: an expectation-states approach. New York: Elsevier.
Borgatti, S.P. 1999. Elicitation techniques for cultural domain analysis. In J.J. Schensul, M.D. LeCompte, B.K. Nastasi & S.P. Borgatti, Enhanced ethnographic methods: Audiovisual techniques, focused group interviews, and elicitation techniques, vol. 3: 115-151. Ethnographer’s toolkit, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Byrne, D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Carver,C.S., & Scheier, M.F. 1996. Perspectives on personality. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
De Vocht, A. 1999. Basishandboek SPSS 8&9 voor Windows 95 & 98. Utrecht: Bijleveld Press.
Ganster, D.C., Hennessey, H.W., & Luthans, F. 1983. Social desirability effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 321-331.
Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., & Schwartz, J.L.K. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1464-1480.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis (5thed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., & Bell, M.P. 1998. Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 96-107.
Harrison, D.A., Gavin, J.H., & Florey, A.T. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1029-1045.
Hobman, E.V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. 2004. Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group Organization Management, 29: 560 – 587.
Jackson, K.M., & Trochim, W.M.K. 2002. Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5: 307-336.
Jackson, S.E., May, K.E., & Whitney, K. 1995. Under the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In: R.A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations: 204-261. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jackson, S.E. 1996. The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In: M.A. West, Handbook of work group psychology: 53-75. Chichester: Wiley.
Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N.L. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29 (6): 801-830.
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.
Lawrence, B.S. 1997. The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8: 1-22.
McGrath, J.E. 1964. Social psychology: a brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
McGrath, J.E., Berdahl, J.L., & Arrow, H. 1995. Traits, expectations, culture, and clout: the dynamics of diversity in work groups. In S.E. Jackson & M.N. Ruderman, Diversity in work teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace: 17-45. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. 1989. The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggin’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 586-895.
McCrae, R.R., & John, O.P. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its implications. Journal of Personality, 60: 175-215.
Milliken, F.J., & Martins, L.L. 1996. Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21: 402-433.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P.M. 2003. Human Resource Management. Gaining a competitive advantage (4thed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Oosterhof, A., Van der Vegt, G.S., Van de Vliert, E., Sanders, K., & Kiers, H.A.L. 2007. What’s the difference? Insider perspectives on the importance, content, and meaning of interpersonal differences. Working paper.
Riordan, C.M. 2000. Relational demography within groups: past developments, contradictions, and new direction. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 19: 131-173.
Simons, T., Pelled, L.H., & Smith, K.A. 1999. Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 662-673.
Sloore, H. & Rossi, G. 2003/2004. Capita Selecta uit de persoonlijkheidspsychologie: Consistentie van de persoonlijkheid. Thesis.
Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. 1992. Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62: 207-218.
Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups & social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.
Tafjel, H., & Turner, J.C. 1986. The social identity of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations: 7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tsui, A.S., & Gutek, B.A. 1999. Demographic differences in organizations: current research and future directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D., & O’Reilly III, C.A. 1992. Being different: relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549-579.
Turner, J.C. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: a self categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Van der Vegt, G.S., & Bunderson, J.S. 2005. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 532-547.
Van der Vegt, G.S., & Van de Vliert, E. 2005. Effects of perceived skill dissimilarity and task interdependence on helping in work teams. Journal of Management, 31: 73-89.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Homan, A.C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 1008-1022.
Wagner, W., Pfeffer J., & O’Reilly, C. 1984. Organizational demography and turnover in top management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 74-92.
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.
Wiersema, M., & Bird, A. 1993. Organizational demography in Japanese firms: group heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 996-1025.
Williams, H.M., Parker, S.K., & Turner, N. 2007. Perceived dissimilarity and perspective taking within work teams. Group Organization Management, 32: 569-597.
FIGURE 1
Scree Plot with Normalized Raw Stress for several dimensions
TABLE 1
Final cluster solution with characteristics and label
Cluster Diversity characteristics
1 Work-related characteristics Aggression handling patients Assertive Degree of activeness versus passiveness Dominance
Giving boundaries (to oneself and to patients) Handling rules
Patient approach Patient involvement
Structured versus chaotic
Think versus act Uncertainty versus self-assurance 2 Personal factors Ambitions Age Education / knowledge Function Gender Household situation Interests Motivation Opinions Outlook on life Personal qualities Personality / character Preferences (Social) intelligence 3 Personality characteristics Careful Creativity Directness Enthusiasm Flexibility Functionality Honesty Humour Introversion / extraversion Loyalty Multilateral Patience Perfectionism Perseverance Pose Problem solving Punctuality Reliability Sensitive Serious Social skills Spontaneity Stability Tolerance 4 Characteristics related to working with colleagues (in a team)
Colleague approach Cooperation Degree of consultation with colleagues Good fellowship Handling administrative tasks Handling changes Handling conflicts Handling work pressure
Role in the team Team involvement Time of collaboration Thinking on the same level Vision of work Way of communicating Way of giving and handling feedback Work approach Work involvement 5 KSAO’s 1 Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Other
characteristics Ability to reflect Attitude Clarity Competences Dedication Expertises Knowledge of target group Perspective taking Professionalism Responsibility Safety Skills Support
1Refers to the term used for job specification by Noe (2003:149). KSAOs are not directly observable, only
TABLE 2
Significations on each dimension2 Dimension Amount of significant differences % of total (79) Significance level 1 Visibility 38 48% p < .05 (30) p < .01 (8) 2 Work-related Characteristics 15 19% p < .05 (13) p < .01 (2) 3 Information-related characteristics 30 38% p < .05 (16) p < .01 (14) 4 Relations-related Characteristics 22 28% p < .05 (14) p < .01 (6) p < .001 (2) 5 Value-related Characteristics 7 9% p < .05 (6) p < .01 (1) 6 Personality-related characteristics 11 14% p < .05 (7) p < .01 (4) 7 Status-related Characteristics 7 9% p < .05 (5) p < .01 (2) 8 Mutable Characteristics 8 10% p < .05 (7) p < .01 (1)
TABLE 3
Top 10 most frequently mentioned characteristics by employees, accompanied with rating scores of the employees and diversity experts on the dimensions
Top
10 # Characteristic Frequency Employees Diversity experts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Personality Work approach Attitude Knowledge Humour Cooperation Good fellowship Age Flexibility Professionalism 59 48 22 22 20 17 16 11 10 11 Personality-related (6,13) Information-related (5,75) Work-related (6) Information-related (6,25) Personality-related (5,88) Work-related (6) Work-related (6,38) Visibility (5,25) Work-related (6)
Work and information-related (6,25)
TABLE 4
Top 10 characteristics on each dimension according to employees
Dimension Top 10 # Characteristic Average score 1 Visibility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gender Pose Social skills Humour (Social) intelligence Spontaneity Clearness Attitude Functionality Dominance 6,25 6,00 5,63 5,50 5,50 5,50 5,38 5,38 5,25 5,25 2 Work-related characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Work involvement Patient involvement Reliability Good fellowship Expertise Safety
Aggression handling patients Team involvement Honesty Professionalism 6,63 6,50 6,50 6,38 6,38 6,38 6,25 6,25 6,25 6,25 3 Information-related characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Aggression handling patients Expertise
Knowledge of target group Education / knowledge Professionalism
Vision of work
5 Value-related characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Outlook on life Honesty Interests Ambitions Attitude Opinions Work approach Vision of work Assertive Patient approach 6,00 5,88 5,88 5,75 5,75 5,75 5,63 5,63 5,50 5,50 6 Personality-related characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Personal qualities Personality / character Reliability Dominance Perseverance Clarity Enthusiasm Flexibility Patience Sensitive 6,13 6,13 5,88 5,88 5,88 5,88 5,88 5,88 5,88 5,88 7 Status-related characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ambitions Education / knowledge Assertive
Role in the team Patient approach Colleague approach
Degree of consultation with colleagues Skills
Way of giving and handling feedback Way of communicating 5,50 5,25 5,13 5,13 5,00 4,88 4,88 4,88 4,88 4,75 8 Mutable characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Work approach
Degree of consultation with colleagues Handling administrative tasks
Knowledge of target group Ability to reflect
