Master Thesis Final Version Carolina Garay 2008

8/3/2019 Master Thesis Final Version Carolina Garay 2008

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/master-thesis-final-version-carolina-garay-2008 1/44

MASTER WOP-P ERASMUS MUNDUS 2008

MASTER THESIS

“Diversity and team performance: curvilinear relationships or linear models with

mediated relationships?”

Key words: team work, demographic diversity, team reflexivity, performance

Author: Carolina Garay Universidad de Valencia - Valencia, España

[email protected]

Tutor Home University: Prof. Vicente González- Roma, Universidad de Valencia

Tutor Host University: Prof. Salvatore Zappalà, Universitá di Bologna

1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



ABSTRACT

This paper aims to investigate new lines of explanations on the relationships between

demographic diversity and team performance.

This field of study, as shown by the last main important reviews made by Williams &

O’Reilly (1998) and van Knippenberg & Schippers (2007), has yielded inconsistent and

sometimes contradictory findings regarding the effects of diversity on team outcomes

and team processes.

In order to overcome the problem of contradictory results from previous studies, it is

necessary to take into account the possible role of mediator and moderator variables that

may underlie the negative and positive effects of demographic diversity as well as to

consider the possible non linear relationships between demographic diversity and team

outcomes, as suggested by van Knippenberg & Schippers (2007).

In this study, we will investigate whether the relationship between demographic

diversity and team performance is curvilinear with an inverted U shape, or whether it is

linear and mediated by team reflexivity.

These relationships will be tested in a sample of 155 work teams from three savings

banks. Data was gathered at on two occasions 6 months apart. To test the study

hypothesis, hierarchal multiple regression analysis and structural equations models will

be used.

We expect that the results of this study will contribute to a deep understanding of

demographic diversity since it will examine two different alternatives; which may

explain the effects of demographic diversity in teams, opening a new line of enquiry for

future theory and research.

2



INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

1.2 TEAM OUTCOMES: PERFORMANCE

2. NON-LINEAR RELATIONSHIPS AND REFLEXIVITY

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJETIVES

4. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

5. METHOD

6. ANALYSIS

7. RESULTS

8. DISCUSSION

3



1. INTRODUCTION

Diversity in teams and organizations has become an important issue in

organizational behaviour, given the increasing diversity in organizational settings, due

to several changes that organizations and workforces have undergone in the last years.

Globalization, immigration, the incorporation of the women in the workforce and the

competitive environments in which the organizations are immersed are part of these

major trends.

Several demographic changes are expected that will affect the workforce by

2030 in Europe. For example, a shrinkage of the workforce is expected. From 1985 and

1995, the workforce in Europe has increased from 154 to 169 million people, and it will

be 183 million people by 2010. Nevertheless, by 2050 it is expected that the size will be

the same as in 1985, due to the decline in birth rates. In addition, in terms of age,

nowadays over 20% of the workforce in the European Union is over 50 years old.

Between 2020 and 2050, this percentage is expected to increase to 30%. Another feature

is the incorporation of women into the labour market, which is expected to become 44%

of the active population by 2010. Finally, due to the low birth rates, an increase in

immigration is expected, since Europe will need over 40 million people to replace its

active population. (Susaeta Erburu, Navas López,2005).

The European Union is also concerned about diversity in the workplace, since “

(…) Europe’s changing demographics (low birth rates, ageing populations and

shrinking workforce) that in the coming years will require many companies to consider

a much more diverse pool of talent to meet their recruitment needs, including cross-

border sourcing” (European Commission, 2005, pg. 5). This reality is fostering attempts

to promote diversity in the workplace as well as to prevent discrimination.

In addition, organizations increasingly operate in a multinational and

multicultural context (Milliken & Martins 1996). This means that people interact in a

major degree with different people in its day-to-day work. These issues have as a result

organizations with a greater proportion of heterogeneity, not only in visible attributes

like sex or age, but also regarding functional and educational background since

organizations are increasingly turning in the use of cross-functional teams (van

Knippenberg et al.2004).

Work teams are set in organizations with the goal of creating more innovative,

high performing organizations (Weber & Donahue, 2001). Existing literature states that

4



work teams are critical tools for solving problems and making decisions in highly

complex environments (Shaw & Barrett-Power, 1998). They also play a role in the

overall effectiveness of organizations (Guzzo, 1998).

Therefore it is necessary to understand how diversity influences team

performance. It is still unclear if diversity in work teams brings added value to their

functioning and thus their outcomes based on the large pool of resources, perspectives

and viewpoints the members may bring, enhancing their potential and creativity, or if on

the other hand, diversity produces conflicts within the group through categorizations

and in turn, intergroup bias, that may impair the internal processes and lead to negative

outcomes (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998; Mannix & Neale, 2005, van Knippenberg &

Schippers, 2007).

In this state of art of diversity research, there is a call to recognize why these

differences are present, and how can they become integrated in order to yield a more

comprehensive and solid knowledge of diversity in teams. In addition, we need to

identify how to counteract the negative effects that past research showed it may

produce.

5



1.1THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Diversity could be defined as a characteristic of a social grouping that reflects

the degree to which objective or subjective differences exist between group members

(van Knippenberg & Schippers 2007). This definition is broad and may include any

particular aspect plausible to make a differentiation, as demographic attributes (such as

race or gender) or nondemographic attributes (those related to functional background,

for example) and also aspects such as values, beliefs and personality.

Some authors have distinguished diversity in terms of types of diversity,

defining two major categories, based in their visibility. Thus, diversity could be related

to those attributes more detectable and observable, such as race or gender, and those less

detectable, such as functional background or technical abilities (Milliken & Martins,

1996). The latter would be more job-related, whereas the former would be less job-

related (van Knippenberg et. al, 2004). Job relatedness refers to the degree to which the

attribute captures experiences, skills or perspectives pertinent to cognitive work tasks

(Weber & Donahue, 2001).

Nevertheless, both types of diversity could also be related and not be such distinct in

practice. For example, two persons with different races may have experienced different

educational cultures, and thus may espouse different values (Jehn et al., 1999).

This general distinction (readily detectable attributes- underlying attributes) has

favoured that the research on diversity followed two theoretical paths well

differentiated: the social category perspective and the information-decision making

perspective (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Each one has focused on certain attributes

and certain processes of the teams. Social categorization perspective has focused on the

conflict, communication problems, liking and cohesiveness, whereas the Information-

decision making perspective has focused on cognitive processing demands, careful

analysis and information use (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998, Milliken & Martins, 1996,

van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The outcomes assessed include turnover,

performance, communication, innovation to mention a few (van Knippenberg &

Schippers, 2007) As William & O’Reilly (1998) noted, these theories can lead to

contradictory predictions about the effects of diversity. One thing worthy to notice is

that most of the research at the beginning has focused on attributes such as age, tenure,

sex, racial/ethnicity and background diversity. This trend has become to change, and

6



now research on diversity also includes aspects such as beliefs or values diversity (van

Knippernberg & Schippers, 2007).

As we have mentioned, according to the two perspectives that have studied

diversity in work teams, there are different assumptions. In order to understand the

results that diversity research has presented, we will explain in brief the two theoretical

backgrounds that guided this research and some of their findings.

The social category perspective postulates that the persons make social-

categorizations, after being involved in a process of social comparison that helps the

individuals to define themselves. Making use of these categorizations, people include

themselves and the others into social categories through a variety of aspects, such as

age, gender, status, skills, etc. These processes lead to a definition and a construction of

a social identity, and thus, the belonging to a certain social group or category (Williams

& O`Reilly, 1998).

Once this categorizations are made, people make distinctions in order to maintain its

self-identity and self-esteem by considering the ones similar in a positive manner (the

so-called “in-group members”) and considering the dissimilar ones in a negative manner

(“out-group members”). This view has been complemented with the similarity-

attraction approach. This argues that similarity on certain attributes (demographic,

values or attitudes) increases interpersonal attraction and liking, because this similarity

positive reinforces one’s attitudes and beliefs (Williams &O’Reilly, 1998). From this

perspective diversity has been related to dysfunctional aspects of groups functioning,

producing conflict, stereotyping and turnover, to mention a few (Williams & O’ Reilly

1998). This means that when there is present heterogeneity between members in a work

team, the members are supposed to make categorizations based on the salient attributes

they have and to constitute in-groups and out-groups categorizations of similar-

dissimilar members, thus, favouring the similar ones and perceiving dissimilar members

as less trustworthy, honest and cooperative. This, in turn, leads to a conflict inside the

group and may affect the outcomes as well.

To date, there is some evidence supporting this perspective of diversity, also

called the “pessimistic view” of diversity (Mannix & Neale, 2005), although there are

some contradictory findings also.

For example, heterogeneity in tenure was associated with lower levels of social

integration and turnover (O’Reilly, Cadwell and Barnett, 1989). It is proposed that

having entered to the organization at the same time may facilitate both attraction and

7



interaction, therefore the linking between the members. When the people have not

entered into the organization at the same time, they find more difficult to create such

ties, thus the possibility for interaction and communication is less, decreasing the

satisfaction of the members and also their the motivation within the group. Having less

social integration, in turn, leads to individual turnover. This question was also

mentioned by Milliken & Martins (1996), whom based on the ideas from Pfeffer,

argued that when people joint organizations or subunits at the same time, they not only

may develop a similar set of skills but also develop similar identification and

communication patterns based on their common time of entry. In a similar vein, Drach-

Zahavy and Somech, (2002) found that high heterogeneous teams in tenure were less

supportive and effective than low heterogeneous teams in tenure.

The time the team has been together has been proposed to be a key factor to

understand the effects of diversity on team performance and team outcomes. Chatman et

al. (2001) found that among student teams and officers from financial services firm

greater heterogeneity led to group norms to be less cooperative, but this effect

diminished over time. As a function of contact (time being together) the group changed,

becoming more cooperative. Over time, when the people get know each other, the

salience of the categorizations dissipates and the members may be more inclined to

cooperate with one other.

Diversity in values (when members of a group differ in what they think about

the group’s goal, target or mission) reduces satisfaction, intent to remain and

commitment to the group, as showed by Jehn, Northcraft and Neale (1999). They found

that when the members of a team had different values about what the group is supposed

to meet, this leads to a conflict not only about what to do or how to do it (processes

more related to the task), but also yields to an interpersonal conflict, since the

differences on perspectives may lead to categorizations that can provoke hostility and

resent. In this study, was also studied the functional diversity, but it was found to

positively influence the group performance, mediated by task conflict. These results

suggest (also Ancona & Cadwell, 1992) that different types of diversity may have

different effects on team outcomes.

Diversity in gender diversity and race diversity were found to be associated with

lower psychological attachment from the individual, in terms of frequent absences and

less intent to stay with the organization (Tsui, Egan, O’Reilly, 1992). Another study

conducted by Baugh and Graen (1997) found that members of teams that were diverse

8



in terms of gender and ethnicity perceived their team as less effective, compared to

homogeneous groups. The authors suggested that in diverse teams, members feel they

have to work harder in creating and maintaining their working relationships. This lead

to a situation where the team outcomes seem to be less valuable compared to the effort

exerted to produce them.

It appears that not all the attributes of diversity are related to negative outcomes,

and that also the tenure of the team and the type of task should be considered if we want

to understand clearly the effects of diversity. Regarding the tenure of the team, it seems

important to take into account how much time the team has been together, since over

time some detrimental effects of diversity could be overcome due to the fact that the

people begin to develop a common identity. With respect to the type of task, as Van

Knippernberg et al (2004) noticed, we may expect positive effects from diversity when

a team is performing a complex and nonroutine task.

The information-decision making perspective states that diversity can bring

value to a group, because the members will have more skills, abilities, knowledge, and

experience, forming a large pool of resources and information than members of

homogeneous groups. These different experiences and viewpoints may lead to positive

and favourable outcomes, enhancing their capacity for creative problem solving,

through its implicit informational sharing (Mannix & Neale, 2005).

Moreover, the need to reconcile these diverse opinions and knowledge into a shared

understanding could lead to a more creative and innovative group performance (van

Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Heterogeneity brings the opportunity to share

different viewpoints and perspectives, and this is also related to a greater capacity to

reach a better quality of solutions (Hoffman & Maier, 1961). This composition ensures

consideration of a larger set of alternative potential solutions, preventing “group

thinking” (Bantel and Jackson, 1989).

Diversity may have positive effects on the quality of team decision making when

it gives rise to debate and disagreement (De Dreu and West, 2001) something more

unlikely to occur in homogeneous teams, where prevails an orientation to conformity

and compliance. This debate and disagreement due to the different perspectives and

frame of reference are seen as a resource that can promote a better performance.

Diversity in organizational decision-making groups also is related to higher quality

decisions since groups think in more realistic and complex way about their context

(Milliken & Martins, 1996).

9



Thus, from this perspective, diversity is expected to produce positive outcomes

and enhance team performance, due to the valued resources the members have and can

apply in their work. As we mentioned, the type of task is relevant to understand in

which conditions performance should benefit from diversity. Complex and nonroutine

information and decision-making tasks are expected to invite more information

processing and set the stage for potentionally positive effects of diversity (van

Knippenberg et al., 2004).

There is evidence supporting this view of the diversity, but also contradictory

findings.

Wiersema & Bantel (1992) found that the firms that most likely to undergo

strategic change had a top management with heterogeneity educational diversity

(different sets of task-relevant skills, knowledge and abilities as a function of the

educational background). This was supposed to bring diversity of information, sources

and perspectives, also promoting creative-innovative decision making. But diversity in

other variables (age, organizational tenure and team tenure) was negatively related.

Another study conducted by Bantel & Jackson (1992) showed that innovation in

banks was greater in banks headed by more educated managers who came from diverse

functional background. Functional diversity refers to the differences in workplace

experiences, especially the exposure to a particular functional area (Pelled et al, 1999).

In a similar vein, Hambrick, Cho and Chen (1996) showed a positive association

between educational, functional and tenure diversity over the competitive actions taken

by 32 US airlines, and also over their general performance. The cognitive repertoire that

these teams were supposed to have helped developing more creative, noteworthiness

and scoped competitive actions, showed it to be slow. This relation was also found by

Ferrier and Lyon (2004), where firms that showed a better performance where led by

heterogeneous teams.

Watson et al. (1993) conducted a study with students for 17 weeks, comparing

heterogeneous and diverse groups in a complex task, in a university context. They found

that at the beginning, the homogenous groups outperformed the heterogeneous groups,

but at the end, both had the same level of performance and the diverse groups scored

higher on two task measures (range of perspectives and alternatives generated). These

are related to the broad range of alternatives that a diverse group may bring to

discussion in performing a task.

10



As we can see, these two perspectives show that diversity would be deleterious

to the group functioning since when each person organizes its exchanges and

relationships based on social-categorizations and social comparison, these processes

may result in “otherness” (Williams et. al, 1998); whereas at the same time would be

beneficial in the sense that allows a team to posses a variety of information and

expertise, that in turn may lead to a better performance. Nevertheless, it is difficult to

reconcile these contradictory situations in an intact teamwork working in an

organization. The members of a group at the same time could have done a

categorization (and therefore subgroups), based on a salient attribute (e.g. gender), and

at the same time, discussing different viewpoints, but if they have any bias due to the

previous categorization, it is difficult to image a discussion about the task where all the

participants are able to be listened and took into consideration each other regardless

those categorizations (supposing that these categorizations mean a disruption into the

group dynamics, as showed by Social categorization theory) .

This disparity on the results of diversity research has produced a call in order to

take the diversity phenomenon in a more complex way. Some attempts include carrying

out research with possible moderators and mediators for the relationship between

diversity and team outcomes as well as team processes (Guzzo et. al 1996, Williams &

O’Reilly, 1998, van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).Some authors (e.g. Jackson and

Joshi, 2004; Pelled et al, 1999; Jehn and Bezrukova, 2004) have started new lines of

investigation given the gaps identified in the research of the topic. The gaps include the

lack of an integrative framework and the systematically investigation of “direct effects”

(van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). These new lines of investigation focus on the

processes that underlie those effects and may explain, in a better way, the results

showed.

11



1.2 TEAM OUTCOMES: PERFORMANCE

Organizations rely on teams to enhance quality, develop new products and solve

critical problems (Tjosvold et al., 2003). Since teams are becoming more diverse it

becomes necessary to understand how diversity influences their performance and

effectiveness.

Regarding the team outcomes we will focus on group performance. Group

performance is defined by three criteria, following Hackman’s ideas (1987, cited in

Williams & O’Reilly, 1998): “(1) the productive output of the group meets or exceeds

the performance standards of the costumer; (2) the social processes used in carrying out

the work maintain or enhance the capability of the members to work together

subsequent team tasks; and (3) the group experience satisfies rather than frustrates the

personal needs of the group members”.

Existing literature shows that we need to improve our understanding of the

influence of diversity on team performance, since much is still unknown regarding its

impact on work group outcomes (Webber et al., 2001) and the contradictory findings

reported in several narrative reviews ( see Milliken & Martins, 1996; Williams &

O`Reilly, 1998, van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).

For instance, Williams & O`Reilly (1998) have concluded that increased

diversity has negative effects on the ability of the group to meet its member’s needs and

to function effectively over time. This conclusion is due to the evidence that diversity

impair group cohesion and attachment, which in turn, disrupt group performance, drawn

from Social category theory. Milliken & Martin (1996) observed that the more diverse

groups seem to have greater coordination cost than groups composed of homogeneous

people. This, in turn, affects team performance.

The “value-in-diversity” perspective predicts that diversity enhances group

performance because of the broader perspectives on the problem at hand, the greater

pool of potential solutions to examine and the development of more innovative ideas

that members can bring ( Knouse & Dansby,1999). Some results seem to support the

idea that functional- occupational diversity improves at least some types of performance

(Jackson, Joshi, Erhardt, 2003). Nevertheless, the idea that different types of diversity

may have different impacts on the work group’s performance -e.g. highly job-related

diversity attributes such as education, may have stronger impact in tasks performed than

12



less job-related attributes such as sex, have received mixed support (Weber et al., 2001,

van Knippenberg et al., 2007).

There is evidence that the nature of the task to be performed moderates the

effects of diversity in performance, thus diversity is often beneficial for tasks that

require creative problem solving (Jackson & Joshi, 2004). Heterogeneity in terms of

abilities and experiences may have a positive effect on performance, especially when

tasks assigned are diverse (Campion, 1993). In a similar vein, van Knippenberg et al.

(2004) proposed that diversity may be positively related to performance when

performance requires information processing and creative, innovative solutions. The

organizational context is also important to understand diversity effects on performance,

for example Jehn and Bezrukova (2004) found that diverse groups perform better in

work environments that focus on creativity and innovation.

The effects of diversity on performance have traditionally been studied as a

linear, direct relationship. This approach has overlooked the possibility that diversity

effects can be understood as a non-linear relationship. This is to say that the effects of

diversity could be interpreted in terms of the level of diversity present in a team;

distinguishing among low, moderate and highly diverse teams where different

consequences might be observed. In this regard, there is evidence of U shape

relationships (Early et al., 2000, Richard et al., 2004) as well as inverted-U shape

relationships between diversity and performance (González- Roma et al., 2006; Dahlin

et al., 2005).

The literature reviewed so far demonstrates the unclear assumptions related to

diversity research. There is a need of research focusing in other aspects that were

insufficiently covered in the past. For instance, the inclusion of mediators and

moderators variables; as well as non-linear relationships to clarify the effects of

diversity were mentioned as critical points to analyse (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998; van

Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) .In other words, to disentangle the controversial

findings of diversity research, it seems critical to comprehend under what conditions

and by which mechanisms diversity might have positive or negative effects on team

performance.

In order to explain these questions, the present study contributes by focusing on

two different alternatives: (1) a non-linear relationship model and (2) a linear model

with a mediator variable. Our aim is to ascertain which is more useful to explain the

13



diversity and performance relationship, thus extending past knowledge and resolving

the observed needs.

In this regard, our study includes some of the new attempts within diversity

research in order to overcome past discrepancies (van Knippenberg et al., 2007). Their

consideration brings us the opportunity to have a more comprehensive vision of

diversity; which has proved not to be a straightforward phenomenon. These issues are

important because they also have practical implications. Moving forward in our

understanding over diversity can help organizations regarding how to manage diversity

as well as how to make use of it effectively thus avoiding (potential) negative

consequences.

14



2. NON-LINEAR RELATIONSHIPS AND REFLEXIVITY

NON-LINEAR RELATIONSHIPS:

As we have already mentioned, the consideration of non-linear relationships

represents a new attempt within diversity research to understand the ambiguous

conclusions of the evidences already commented.

Past research has shown that when a team is highly heterogeneous there is a lack

of a common frame of reference due to the differences in the viewpoints and

perspectives that each member brings, which can result incompatible (van Knippenberg

& Schippers, 2007). In addition, William & O’Reilly (1998) also noted in their review

that large amount of diversity may offer little value and impair the group cohesion and

functioning.

In the case of a highly heterogeneous team, it can be argued that there are more

salient characteristics at hand and for that reason it is more likely categorization

processes to be triggered. These categorization processes may interfere with any team’s

ability to capitalize on increased information (Dahlin et al., 2005) or the cognitive

resources available. These ideas are coherent with the assumption that to benefit from

diversity of information, expertise, experience, etc., group members should be able to

manage and to understand the contributions of dissimilar others.

Therefore, an important issue arises: whether it is possible that the level of

diversity given in a group limits or fosters the potential effects that diversity might have

on team processes and outcomes. In this regard, it was suggested that moderate levels of

diversity will not impair the group processes and outcomes (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998;

van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). This is to say that when is present a moderate

level of diversity members can handle the categorizations or conflicts that may arise,

being able to benefit from them without impairing the team. In this sense, the members

would have differences among them but they would have some common points as well

which can facilitate the cohesion and openness needed within the team.

Thus, it may be possible that for a given level of diversity, the group would be

able to benefit from it up to a certain degree. Beyond this level, it would not be more

beneficial and diversity will disrupt group processes, for example, introducing

misunderstandings (van Knippenberg et al. 2004) or information overload (Dahlin et al,

2005). As group members differ more among each other (favouring categorizations and

15



subgroups), it is more likely that they will not share a common sense of reference or

identity which can allow them to understand others’ contributions (van Knippenberg et

al. 2007). Therefore, as diversity increases, categorization processes may begin to

override the potential cognitive resources making team processes and functioning

difficult, creating coordination and communication problems (Gonzalez- Roma and

West, 2006). Thus, a highly diverse team might promote conflicts or misunderstandings

that impair team performance, for instance coordination and communication problems

may arise due to the wider range of alternatives and perspectives the members bring.

This situation may create difficulties in task performance, since agreements might result

problematic to achieve. Strong differences among the members may foster barriers that

limit the potential that diverse resources are supposed to have. Another aspect to

consider is that members may not be able to integrate each other’s information (Dahlin

et al., 2005) because they cannot find a common framework, thus not taking advantage

of their diversity.

In the case of a team low in diversity, it seems that due to the present similarities

there will be no problems regarding social categorizations, potential conflict or poor

communication. However, the team is likely not to have significant cognitive resources,

due to the resemblance in perspectives, backgrounds and experiences. The similarities

may foster a common identity that prevents disputes or tension but at the same time

fosters “group thinking” and fixed routines, which not add value to the team’s

performance.

Based on these ideas, an inverted U shape relationship can account for the

positive effects from diversity. Therefore, when the team’s composition is defined by

moderate levels of diversity; this will not hamper the team processes allowing the

members to benefit from diversity. In this condition the members may be able to

enhance their performance through the wider range of resources, broader perspectives, a

more varied network of contacts available to work with and a greater capability to

process information and make decisions (Milliken & Martin, 1996; Knouse &

Dansby,1999). Therefore, it might be expected a better performance from moderate

diversity teams than lower as well as higher diversity teams (van Knippenberg et al.,

2007).

Moreover, moderate levels of diversity may also help to avoid the negative

effects of categorization or the negative effects of increased complexity (Van der Vegt

& Bunderson, 2005). Moderate increments of diversity could bring to the team more

16



cognitive resources, with small negative effects on team processes and psychological

safety (Gonzalez- Roma and West, 2006).

Regarding non-linear models, there is some evidence for inverted U-shape

relationships in recent diversity research. For example, González-Roma et al (2006),

investigated a possible non-linear relationship between age, sex and tenure diversity and

team innovation (measured as quantity and quality of innovations) in a sample of health

care teams. They have found tenure diversity having a curvilinear, inverted U shaped

relationship with quantity of innovation. The explanation for this result was that at low

levels of tenure diversity, a team may lack the cognitive resources needed to produce

innovative solutions. However, a moderate level of tenure increased team innovation

without impairing the processes needed to generate and implement the ideas.

This pattern of relationship suggests that as diversity increases, categorization

processes begin to override the potential creativity gains, impeding the successful

implementation of new ideas and in turn reducing team innovation.

Richard et al. (2004) studied gender and racial diversity in management and firm

performance. Hypothesizing non-linear relationships, they found that moderately

heterogeneous management groups exhibited better performance than other

management groups. They suggest that at high levels of diversity, problems such as

poor communication reduced social cohesion and increased conflict may appear,

leading to a decreased performance.

Another study conducted by Dahlin et al. (2005) assessed how diversity teams

used the information, finding curvilinear patterns for this relationship. The highly

diverse educational teams used broader ranges of information, but only up to a point.

This happened also with the depth of the information use. The findings suggest that

some diversity in educational background brings more information available to a team,

but yet too much makes it difficult to access, explore and link. The results show that

highly diverse teams reach a saturation point above which they no longer continue to

gain benefit from diversity, because the members are not able to handle the information

adequately.

They found also an inverted U shape relationship regarding the integration and

depth of information with nationality diversity, suggesting that moderate nationally

diversity stimulated depth and integration of the information, dominating the negative

effects of social categorizations. Another possible explanation is that the differences

17



noticed in the early stages were suppressed as members got to know each other,

identifying points of similarity.

Following these ideas, we think that moderate levels of diversity will not hamper

the team processes and consequently, can have positive effects on performance. The

members will be able to enhance their performance because they will have a wider

range of resources and perspectives (Milliken & Martin, 1996; Knouse & Dansby,

1999) that they will be able to use adequately.

Therefore, it is expected that moderate diverse teams will be able to perform

better than low as well as highly diverse teams (van Knippenberg et al., 2007).

According to past research and these ideas, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1 The relationship between demographic diversity and team performance depends

on the level of diversity, so that relation shows an inverted- U shape.

18



TEAM REFLEXIVITY:

Past research has overlooked the role of mediator and moderator variables

(Williams & O’Reilly, 1998; van Knippenberg et al, 2004), which are supposed to

better explain the effects of diversity on performance. In this regard, van Knippenberg

et al (2004) have developed an integrative model, called CEM Model (Categorization-

Elaboration Model) in order to overcome this failure on diversity research. The CEM

model integrates the aforementioned two traditional approaches of diversity research,

integrating them for the first time.

On the basis of the model lies the idea that diversity research has to consider the

role of the team as an information processor when explaining the effects that diversity

may have on performance. It is proposed that the core of the positive effects of diversity

lies in the elaboration of task relevant information: “we propose that diversity within a

group is positively related to the elaboration of task-relevant information and

perspectives within the group –that is, to group members’ exchange, discussion, and

integration of ideas, knowledge, and insights relevant to the group’s task” (van

Knippenberg et al, 2004, p. 1010). Elaboration is defined as “the exchange of

information and perspectives, individual-level processing of the information and

perspectives, the process of feeding back the results of this individual-level processing

into the group, and discussion and integration of its implications” (van Knippenberg et

al, 2004, p. 1011). Thus, to the extent that the members of a group elaborate their

different ideas and perspectives they may benefit from them, leading to positive

outcomes such as improved creativity, innovation and decision quality (van

Knippenberg et al, 2004).

It is assumed that to benefit from the diverse cognitive resources the team have,

the available information must be handled adequately. Therefore, one of the key

propositions of the model is that the relationship between diversity and team

performance is mediated by the team elaboration of information relevant to the team

task.

In the present study, we propose team reflexivity as an indicator of elaboration

of information. Reflexivity refers to the extent to which group members overtly reflect

upon the group’s objectives, strategies and processes, and adapt them to current or

anticipated endogenous or environmental circumstances (West, 1996).

19



In this respect, reflexivity could be used as a key process to understand the

effects of diversity in teams, since when team members reflect upon what have they

done, how they have done it, this promotes a constructive discussion that may lead to

new considerations and new solutions. In addition, reflexivity can be used by the team

to manage the tasks- related conflict that sometimes appears among members (Jehn et

al. 1999). This task-related conflict in addition to productive dissent and disagreement

may enhance reflexivity (Schippers et. al, 2003). Thus, when team members reflect,

they might find a way to enhance their effectiveness (West, 1996)

Therefore, reflexivity can be an indicator of the elaboration of information done

within the group, mediating the complex relationship between diversity and team

performance (van Knippenberg et alm 2004). If social categorization processes

emphasizing common goals may inhibit dysfunctional conflict (Williams & O’Reilly,

1998) through the opportunity to re-categorize dissimilar members as in-group

members, reflexivity may promote a situation where each member shares and

appropriates the group’s products, creating a shared understanding which reinforces

those common goals, helping to avoid conflicts.

Regarding the effects of reflexivity, De Dreu (2002) found that greater

innovation and team effectiveness were present only when there was a high level of

team reflexivity within the teams. Tjosvold et al. (2003) in a study conducted in China,

found teams with high levels of task reflexivity resulted in a positive in-role

performance and compliance within the teams. In other study, Tjosvold, Tang and West

(2004) found a positive association between reflexivity and team innovation.

The study of the relationship between diversity and team reflexivity is scarce,

but with interesting findings. One study was conducted by Schippers et al. (2003),

where reflexivity was found mediating the relationship between diversity and team

outcomes (satisfaction, commitment and performance)

The study also showed the moderator effects of team longevity and outcome

interdependence in the proposed relationship. The results showed that highly outcome-

interdependent and highly diverse teams were more reflexive than the teams low in

outcome interdependence and diversity. In contrast, when outcome interdependence was

low, the homogeneous teams tended to be more reflexive than highly diverse teams.

They also found effects for group longevity, where diverse teams high on group

longevity were found to be less reflexive, whereas homogeneous groups with high

group longevity were more reflexive. These results suggest that reflexivity can help

20



members to overcome obstacles within the team, benefiting from the diverse resources

they share; but this process is stimulated when diverse teams are clearly interdependent

in their goals. It was also found that this effect seems to diminish over time, may be due

to some conflicts that might arise and disrupt the team processes.

All these findings indicate that it seems important to have a common goal in

order to engage in reflexivity. It can be argued that sharing objectives stimulates the

exchange of information and discussion about the work, because the members need

each other’s contribution to meet the goals they have. In addition, common goals seem

to minimise the possible categorizations done enabling reflexivity and promoting the

acceptance of the contributions of dissimilar members.

The other study conducted by Somech (2006) evaluated the relationship

between functional diversity, team reflection and team outcomes (in-role performance

and innovation) and the moderating role of leadership style (participative or directive).

Team reflexivity was also tested mediating the interactive effects of leadership styles

and functional diversity on team outcomes.

The results showed that in highly functional diverse teams a participative

leadership style was positively associated with team reflexivity. It seems that when a

leader fosters participation opening communication channels and information exchange,

members engage in debate, analysis and processing which allow them to make use of

the large pool of resources present in the team. In contrast, a directive leadership style

seems to be more adequate to promote team reflexivity when teams are functional

homogeneous. One possible explanation is that in these teams a directive leader might

encourage members to prevent “group thinking” and conformity which are more likely

to be present when members are more similar. Other finding from this study is that team

reflexivity was positively associated with team innovation. This is to say that when

members are able to discuss about the team’s objectives and processes they might find

new ways and new solutions to be applied in their work, thus enhancing their

performance.

Regarding the mediating role of team reflexivity, it was found to mediate the

relationship between the interaction of participative leadership style/functional diversity

and team innovation. Therefore, when in a functional diverse team is present a

participative leader, team reflexivity is fostered among members, which in turn

promotes team innovation. Thus, team reflexivity represents a critical process in

diverse teams to make use and exploit effectively their resources, which allow the teams

21



to enhance their effectiveness and performance. However, as the author posits, it should

be taken into account the type of task in determining the need for team reflexivity. For

instance, regarding team –in role performance it was found no association with team

reflexivity. It can be argued that team reflexivity maybe important for complex and non-

routine tasks.

The empirical evidence has shown that diversity can have positive as well as

negative effects on team processes (e.g. team reflexivity) (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998;

van Knippenberg et al, 2007). In addition, reflexivity has been found to affect positively

group performance because it is related to the elaboration of task-relevant information

(De Dreu,2002; Schippers et al, 2003; Tjosvold et al., 2003).

It can be argued that negative or positive effects of diversity on performance

may be explained by the extent to which teams are reflexive. As it was commented,

reflexivity can help to minimise the possible barriers between diverse members (e.g.

categorizations) enabling the exchange of different ideas and perspectives, which can be

applied to enhance team performance.

Nevertheless, taking into account the Social Category perspective, we can argue

that members may find it difficult to engage in reflection upon what they do due to their

differences or poor integration. The salience of differences may provoke that members

highlight social categories thus communicating frequently with the so-called “in group”

instead of the whole group, thus inhibiting reflexivity.

Taking into consideration past research and the ideas commented, a positive as

well as a negative effect from diversity on team process (e.g. reflexivity)can be

expected, and reflexivity to impact positively on performance. Therefore, the following

hypotheses are proposed:

H2 Diversity influences reflexivity

H2a. Diversity positively influences reflexivity

H2b. Diversity negatively influences reflexivity

H3 Reflexivity positively influences performance

22



3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJETIVES

Since the empirical findings on the relationship between demographic diversity

and team outcomes show an inconsistent pattern of results, we need to overcome this

situation bringing more clarity to the understanding of these relationships. Researchers

have started two lines of investigation, where the research is aimed to:

-ascertain whether the linear relationship between diversity and team outcomes depends

on third variables (moderators) or whether it is mediated by other variables (mediators).

-ascertain whether the relationship between diversity and team outcomes depends on the

level of diversity variables, testing no-linear relationships

In this study we want to test these two alternative hypotheses derived from both

lines of investigation, as a way to establish which is more useful to understand the

relationship between diversity and team outcomes.

Taking into consideration the state of art of the research, and based on the

literature reviewed, we want to answer the following questions:

1. Has diversity (in age, gender, organizational tenure and educational dimensions)

a curvilinear (specifically, an inverted- U shape) relationship with team

performance?

2. Could reflexivity (as a mediator) explain the relationship between diversity and

team performance?

These questions are translated in the following objectives:

1. To describe the possible curvilinear pattern in the relationship between diversity

and team performance. Specially, recognizing whether this relationship may be

presented as an inverted U shape.

2. To recognize whether reflexivity may mediate the relationship between diversity

and team performance.

23



4. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

We think that the present study may help to develop a better understanding of

the complex relationships between diversity and team process and outcomes. As we

pointed out before, one of our main contributions is that two different approaches to

explain diversity and team performance will be tested.

A first model, proposing a curvilinear relationship, tries to answer the following

question: Is it possible that non-linear relationships can account for the positive effects

from diversity on team performance?. This question sounds appropriate since many of

the critics regarding the inconclusive findings in the research postulates that past

research have mainly focused on linear relationships (van Knippenberg et al, 2007). We

propose the possibility to evaluate other types of relations that might better explain the

effects of diversity. The other model proposing a mediator variable, tries to answer the

following question: Should we expect benefits from diversity when members elaborate

information (e.g. reflect upon what and how they act), thus exploiting their considerable

pool of resources?. It can be the case that the positive or negative consequences of

diversity can be better understood if some processes underlying the relationship

between diversity and performance are considered (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). To our

knowledge, this is the first study to test a proposition of the CEM Model (van

Knippenberg et al, 2004) in an intact work setting, pointing to the elaboration of

information as a process that may enhance the positive aspects from diversity. The

study will also help to recognize which characteristics may counteract its detrimental

effects.

These issues are relevant due to the actual state of the art of the field, which is

searching for a more integrative and comprehensive conceptualization of diversity and

its effects on teams and organizations. This interest increases because of the actual

context in which organizations work. For instance, as the workforce becomes

increasingly diverse, organizations need to handle and manage diversity adequately.

This is important because of its potential benefits in terms of competitiveness for

organizations (e.g. innovation or higher performance). In addition, the proper handling

of diversity could avoid the negative outcomes (e.g. discrimination caused by

categorizations or bias) that might impair the organizational performance and in turn,

cause other negative consequences (lower attachment to the organization, job

dissatisfaction) on employees.

24



Therefore, this study would like to contribute with advisable suggestions for

organizations making use of heterogeneous teams. Thus, knowing which conditions

might enable the benefits that diverse teams are supposed to have, there will be useful

implications to management and human resources practices.

25



5. METHOD

Participants and Procedure

The data used in this study were gathered as a part of a wider research on team

climate conducted by Valencia University (Spain), through its department named

UIPOT (Unidad de Investigación de Psicología del Trabajo y las Organizaciones) in

2002.

The sample of work teams used in the present study was composed of 155

branches from three different savings banks that operated in the same region of Spain.

Savings banks are financial entities, constituted as private foundations that have

financial criteria but with a social end. These organizations assign a great proportion of

their benefits to be invested in several social activities. These promoted activities

include the foundation and development of projects in the areas of culture and arts,

education, human capital and employment, nature conservation and social services,

among others. In the three savings banks, the branches had the same structure and

similar sizes, and they performed the same functions. Typically, a bank branch is

composed of a branch manager, one or two internal auditors (depending on branch size),

and a small number of administrative personnel who perform administrative and teller’s

tasks. Our branches could be considered work teams following the ideas proposed by

Guzzo et al. (1996) that define a work team. A work team is made up of individuals

who see themselves and are seen by others as a social entity. They are interdependent

since they share common goals and work processes, coordinating their tasks to achieve

those goals. Their roles were functionally interdependent, every branch had a team

identity within the broader organizational system in which they were embedded, and

their average size was 4.8 (see below). Finally, they are embedded in a larger social

system (the savings banks, society).

The researchers contacted personnel managers from the three banks to ask for

their collaboration in the study. Once they agreed to collaborate, the personnel

managers informed the branch managers that a study on team diversity carried out by a

university research team was going to take place in their organization, and they were

asked to collaborate in the data gathering phase. A group of trained questionnaire

administrators hired by the research team contacted every branch manager involved,

after they were informed about the investigation, in order to arrange for the

administration of questionnaires in his/her branch. The participants filled out the

26



questionnaires during collective administration sessions held by their own bank branch

during working hours. In every collective administration session, a questionnaire

administrator explained how to fill out the questionnaires and guaranteed confidentiality

and anonymity of response. In some cases, when a branch member could not participate

in a collective session the set of questionnaires was personally delivered to him or her

and collected a few days later by the corresponding questionnaire administrator.

Data was gathered on two occasions separated by six months. At Time 1 (May

2002), 718 team members and 151 team managers responded to the questionnaires. At

Time 2 (November 2002), 680 team members and 150 team managers filled out the

questionnaires. Team size (that is, the number of branch members, not including the

team manager) showed an average of 4.87 (SD = 1.76) at Time 1 and 4.82 (SD = 1.89)

at Time 2. On both occasions, team size range varied from 3 to 13 team members. The

response rate was 95.4% at Time 1 and 92% at Time 2. For every team participating in

the study, at least three team members filled out the questionnaires. Team tenure (the

period of time that the team had operated with the same member composition that the

team showed at both measurement occasions, as reported by the team manager) showed

an average of 2.4 years (SD = 3.4) at Time 1 and 2.9 years (SD = 3.7) at Time 2.

Regarding team members’ gender, the percentage of men was 55% at Time 1 and 56%

at Time 2. In relation to team members’ age, 41.1% at Time 1 and 40.1% at Time 2

were between 25 and 35 years of age; 24.4% at Time 1 and 24.7% at Time 2 were

between 36 and 45 years of age; and 22.6% at Time 1 and 23.7% at Time 2 were

between 46 and 55 years of age.

Measures

Demographic diversity measures. We measured diversity with respect to four

demographic variables: sex, age, education and organizational tenure. Theaforementioned questionnaire provided the data used to compute the diversity indices.

In order to preserve the confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents, the

demographic questions were asked in these terms, e.g. “how long have you been

working in your present team?” where the type of answers were “between 6-12 months,

between 1 and 3 years”, etc. Since our diversity variables were computed as categorical,

the operationalization of the diversity variables was based on Blau’s (1977)

heterogeneity index, which is expressed by the following formula:

27



where pi is the proportion of team members in category I, and I is the number of

categories.

Team reflexivity Five items of the Task Reflexivity Scale developed by Carter & West

(1998) were used to measure team’s reflexivity. These items were: “ The methods used

by the team to get the job done are often discussed”, “We regularly discuss whether the

team is working effectively together”, “In this team we modify our objectives in the

light of changing circumstances”, “How well we communicate information is often

discussed”, “This team often reviews its approach to getting the job done”. Items were

scored on five-point Likert scales ranging from (1) “strongly agree” to (5) “strongly

disagree”. Reliability estimate (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) was .90. To test the study

hypotheses, we had to aggregate team members’ scores on team reflexivity at the team

level following a referent-shift consensus model of composition (see Chan, 1998). Prior

to aggregating, first we assessed within-team agreement in team reflexivity by means of

the interrater agreement index, r wg(J), developed by James, Demaree and Wolf (1984),

and then we estimated the relative consistency of responses among team members by

computing the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC[1]) (Bliese, 2000).

The mean value for the r wg(J) was .72 (SD = .22), which denotes a sufficient level of

within-team agreement in the study sample. The ICC(1) value obtained for team

reflexivity was .29. Therefore, we concluded that the level of consistency of responses

among team members in team reflexivity was adequate.

We also carried out a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to ascertain whether

there was statistically significant between-team discrimination on the team reflexivity

scale. The results obtained ( F (154, 563) = 1.85, p < .01) show adequate between-teams

discrimination on team reflexivity scores, and they support the validity of the aggregate

team reflexivity measures (Chan, 1998).

Team performance Team performance was measured by a 2-item scale responded by

team managers. One item was selected and adapted from Jehn and colleagues’ group

performance scale” (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999): “How well do you think your

work team performs?” Respondents answered using a 5-point scale (1 = very badly, 5 =very well ). The other item was as follows: “What is the quality of the work carried out

28

∑=

−=I

1i

2

i p1H



by your team?”. Respondents answered using a 5-point scale (1 = very bad , 5 = very

good ). Thus, our measure of team performance focused on the quality of the work

performed by branches. Reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients) at Time 1

and at Time 2 in the sample of team managers were .73 and .68, respectively. Mean

values at Time 1 and Time 2 were 4.09 (SD = .38) and 4.06 (SD = .40), respectively.

6. ANALYSIS

To test Hypothesis 1, which predicts a non-linear relationship with an inverted

U-shape between diversity variables and team innovation; we conducted a hierarchal

regression analysis. At the first step, we entered three control variables: team size, team

tenure and performance criterion (leader) in Time 1. We included this variable since

literature shows that prior performance is a predictor of future performance (Wiersema

& Bantel, 1992)

Regarding the other control variables, previous research has shown that both team

tenure and team size may affect team outcomes. For example, size of the group may

have effects since larger teams have more potential for heterogeneity (Pelled et al.,

1999, O’Reilly et al., 1989). Team tenure can have a direct impact in performance, since

over time certain ways of communication and interaction may be developed (Wiersema

and Bantel, 1992, Ancona & Cadwell, 1992). At the second step we entered all diversity

variables considered. Finally, at the third step, we entered the squared terms of diversity

variables.

To test Hypothesis 2, 2a and 2b and 3 - our prediction that reflexivity mediates

the relationship between diversity and team performance- we used a structural equation

modeling (SEM), following the suggestions made by James, Muliak and Brett (2006).

SEM should be applied when theoretical mediation models are thought of as casual

models.

The other approach used regarding the evaluation of mediation models is the

“Baron-Kenny” approach which shares some characteristics but also has some

differences from SEM approach. Baron & Kenny (1986, cited in Brown, 1996) have

defined that “a variable functions a mediator when it meets the following conditions: (a)

variations in levels of the independent variable significantly account for variations in

29



the presumed mediator, (b) variations in the mediator significantly account for

variations in the dependent variable and (c) when (a) and (b) are controlled a previously

significant relationship between the independent and dependent variable is no longer

significant”. Their test of mediation includes four steps: (1) the outcome variable is

regressed on the initial variable, (2) the mediator variable is regressed on the initial

variable, (3) the mediator variable is regressed on the outcome variable controlling for

the initial variable and (4) the outcome variable is regressed on the initial variable

controlling for the mediator variable. The effect of the initial variable should reduce to

no significance (full mediation) if not, there is a partial mediation (James et al., 2006).

One of the main differences between “Baron-Kenny” approach and SEM approach is

the presumed baseline model. James et al. (2006) note that the base line in the “K-B”

approach is a partial mediation model, because the third step of the approach estimates

the regression of the outcome variable on the mediator variable with the initial variable

controlled. This is congruent with a partial mediation model, but not with a full

mediation model. On the contrary, the SEM approach uses the complete mediation

model as the baseline when a complete mediation is presumed. Another difference is

that SEM does not include the test for the relationship between the initial variable and

the outcome variable, which is the Step 1 in “B-K” approach. In addition, recent

research (McKinnon et al., 2002) has shown that the power and Error I Type rates for

the Baron and Kenny approach are not adequate.

James et al. (2006) suggest that when theory and research are insufficient to

hypothesize complete or partial mediation, a complete mediation should be tested since

this model is the most parsimonious model.

Therefore, based on the recommendations by James et al. (2006), we used the

SEM approach to test our model. This technique allowed us to examine the indirect

relationships between demographic diversity and team performance via team

reflexivity. A single model was tested which included the hypothesized mediated

relationships.

30



7. RESULTS

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations among the

variables. Team size and team tenure are not significantly related to team performance

(r = .010 and r = .083, respectively), but previous performance is significantly related

(r =. 525, p < 0.01) Team reflexivity is linearly and significantly related to

organizational tenure diversity (r =.245, p <0.01) and performance (r =.162, p < 0.05).

Age diversity correlated significantly with performance (r = -.195); but in general, all

diversity variables show no significant relationship with performance.

Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among variables

Table 2 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis used to test

Hypothesis 1, which predicted that the relationship between diversity and performance

was curvilinear with an inverted U-shape.

After controlling for the influence of control variables and linear terms, the

changes in R 2 were not statically significant (Step 3, ΔR 2 = 0.17). Moreover, just one of

the squared terms (organizational tenure diversity) presents the expected negative sign.

31

M ea n S D 1

1 T e a m s iz eT 1 4 .8 7 1 .7 6 1

2 Te a m te n u re T1 2 8 .6 1 4 1 .0 7 0 ,1 6

3 P e rfo rm a n c e T 1 4 .0 8 .3 8 -.1 1

4 T a s k re f le x iv it y T 1 4 .0 1 .5 8 -0 ,8

5 S e x D iv e r s it yT 1 .3 5 .1 6 .0 3



These results do not support our hypothesis that teams with moderate levels of diversity

perform better than low diverse teams or highly diverse teams.

Table 2- Regression analysis with performance as dependent variable

Predictors

Step 1

Controls

Size .081

Team tenure .041

Performance .532**

Diversity variables

Sex

Age

Education

Note, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, two tailed tests

32



Regarding the hypotheses H2, H2a, H2b y H3, we conducted a path analysis to

test our mediational model, using Lisrel 8.80 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2006). Figure 1

shows the estimated path coefficients for our mediational model. We also entered team

size, team tenure and previous performance as control variables in our hypothesized

model, to control for the possible effects on team performance.

Figure 1- Results of Hypothesized model

Note, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, two tailed tests. Fit indices include: χ 2 (7) = 11.91, p = .10;

CFI = .94; SRMR =.08; RMSEA = .07; AGFI =.90

33



The hypothesized model shows that two control variables had a significant

relationship with performance. Previous performance showed a significant relationship

with performance in Time 2 (β = 0.17, p < .05) as well as team tenure (β = 0.65, p <.01).

Hypothesis 2, which was about the relationship between diversity and reflexivity,

received partial support. As shown in Figure 1, there was a significant relationship

between educational diversity and team reflexivity (β =.14, p <.05). This results counts

for H2a, which predicted that diversity positively influences team reflexivity.

H2b did not received support; none of the diversity variables presented a significant

negative relationship with team reflexivity.

Finally, Hypothesis 3, which was that reflexivity influences team performance, was

confirmed. There was a significant path from team reflexivity to team performance (β

= .11, p <.05).

In regards to model fit, the hypothesized model had a chi-square of 11.91 ( p >.05), with

7 degrees of freedom. The other indices for the model (CFI = .94; SRMR =.08;

RMSEA = .07; AGFI =.90) were considered as indicating good model fit.

Thus, the mediational relationship was found only for educational diversity, even after

controlling for team size, team tenure and previous performance. This indicates that

teams more diverse in education tend to reflect upon their work and processes, and this

in turn, affects group performance positively.

To test whether the mediation model found was full or partial we compared the

proposed model with a model that included a direct path from educational diversity to

performance. The difference in fit between the two models was not statistically

significant (Δχ 2 (6) = 10.71, p >.05) indicating that the addition of this path in the partial

mediation model did not add significantly to the model. Therefore, the total mediation

model was selected because it was the most parsimonious model.

34



8. DISCUSSION

The study of the relationship between demographic diversity and team outcomes

has been developed showing inconsistent results over time. This situation could be

explained as a result of the lack of an integrative framework to understand diversity

effects (Williams et al. 1998. van Knippenberg et al., 2004) but also the lack of research

taking into consideration other possible explanations, such as non-linear relationships or

mediation- moderator factors (van Knippenberg et al., 2007).

In order to overcome the present situation and improve our understanding of the

relationship between team diversity and team outcomes, new lines of investigation

started to study this phenomenon in a more complex way, including non-linear models

and mediators-moderators variables(Earley et al., 2000, Dahlin et al., 2005, Schippers et

al., 2003).

Taking this into account, our study served two purposes: it examined two

possible alternatives regarding the explanation of the relationship between team

diversity and team outcomes based on these new approaches, to ascertain which can be

most useful to explain the consequences of diversity in work teams. One of our

hypotheses evaluated a curvilinear pattern between team diversity and team outcomes

and the other evaluated the possible role of a mediator variable (team reflexivity)

regarding diversity effects on team outcomes. Thus, the present study extends these

new attempts of research to understand diversity.

Regarding nonlinear models, research has yielded mixed results. This suggests

the need to explore further these types of relationships. Past research shows that positive

effects are present in both homogeneous teams and highly diverse teams (Van der Vegt

et al., 2005, Dahlin et al., 2005) whereas other studies show that positive effects are

enabled when moderate levels of diversity are present ( González-Roma et al., 2006,

Richard et al., 2004). Given moderate levels of diversity, the team benefits from a wider

pool of resources, since according to the Information-decision making theories,

diversity groups have more cognitive resources and perspectives to share, also more

skills and abilities to perform the tasks, thus enabling innovative behaviours. But these

potentially positive effects of diversity may only obtain up to a certain level, beyond

which some problems may appear disrupting team’s functioning (van Knippenberg et

al., 2007). Based on these assumptions, we expected an inverted-U shape relationship

35



between diversity and team innovation, but the analysis did not support our proposition.

A possible explanation for these results is that diversity has a linear relationship with

team performance, as it was studied in past research and stated by both Social category

perspective and Information-decision making perspective (Williams et. al, 1998, van

Knippenberg et al. 2007). It is possible that for benefit from diversity , the level of

diversity present in a certain group is not as relevant as we proposed, instead other

processes may explain better when we should expect positive effects from diversity.

Since the alternative of curvilinear relationships has not be confirmed, it is

possible that the relationship between diversity and team performance may be better

explained regarding a linear model that takes into consideration mediator factors, as

proposed for example in the CEM model (van Knippenberg et al., 2004).

Our second hypothesis proposed that team reflexivity mediate the relationship between

diversity and team outcomes. Team reflexivity has been proposed as a key factor to

promote team effectiveness, because when team members overtly reflect upon their

actions and processes, they gain insight and develop new ways to work (West, 2002).

In this study we found that educational diversity was positively related to team

reflexivity. Our results suggest that the teams that were more engaged in reflection upon

their objectives, strategies and processes were the more educationally diverse teams.

When team members are diverse in their educational background - and therefore

knowledge, experience and viewpoints –they may need to conciliate these different

contributions to carry out their tasks. This exchange and discussion may promote a

shared understanding that enables the benefits from diverse cognitive resources. This is

congruent with the proposition made by van Knippenberg et al. (2004) that diversity is

positively related to performance to the extent that members elaborate task-relevant

information and perspectives within the group.

The large pool of information available may stimulate a reflection that in turn helps the

members to elaborate task-relevant information for their work, influencing positively

their performance. As noted by Tjosvold et al. (2003), to the extent that teams engage in

team reflexivity they are able to perform effectively over time.

Having different educational backgrounds seems to promote the reflection of

the members on their actions, in turn this may improve their performance due to the

discussion and review triggered; where a broader pool of cognitive resources shared and

considered may enhance the quality of the decisions made and solutions adopted. This

idea supports the “value in diversity” perspective which states that the differences in

36



information, knowledge and perspectives may benefit group performance (van

Knippenberg et al., 2007).

Regarding the other types of diversity examined, we did not find such a

relationship. A possible explanation could be related to the type of diversity attribute

considered. Pelled et al. (1999), based on ideas from Zenger and Lawrence, noted that

some attributes (e.g. age) form the context for more general social relationships and are

less directly associated with team objectives and for that reason are unlikely to have

much direct bearing in conversations about technical work. In this sense, there are some

dimensions of diversity that may have a stronger impact on performance (“job

relatedness”) than others, as some authors have proposed (Milliken & Martins, 1996,

González-Roma, West, 2006). Job-relatedness of a demographic attribute is defined as

“the degree to which that attribute captures experiences and skills germane to cognitive

tasks at work” (Pelled et.al, 1999 pag.3). Educational diversity is an attribute that is

highly job-related, since it is related to certain acquired knowledge, certain

competences, skills and abilities that may influence directly the task performed. It is

possible that others dimensions of diversity being less job-related do not invite the

members to reflect upon the processes and ways of work. These results support previous

findings regarding the importance that job-relatedness of diversity dimensions may have

on team outcomes (Pelled et al., 1999, González-Roma & West, 2006).

Clearly, our findings indicate that more research is needed regarding team

reflexivity and diversity. As some previous studies have shown (Schippers et al, 2003;

Somech, 2006), it could be possible that some moderators should be considered to

understand deeply how the different dimensions of diversity are related to reflexivity

and performance.

Strengths and limitations of the study

In order to interpret correctly the results shown, the strengths and limitations of

the study will be commented. Our study makes some contributions to the literature.

First, we extended new lines of research regarding the complex relationship between

diversity and performance. As such, we included the examination of nonlinear models

and a linear model with a mediator variable in the same study. Second, the present study

used data from an actual workplace setting. Third, the nature of the study was

longitudinal, so the design allowed us to test casual relationships. Fourth, we found

37



partial support for the hypothesized mediational model between educational diversity

and performance, showing that team reflexivity mediates this relationship while

controlling for team size, team tenure and previous performance. Thus, the mediating

role of team reflexivity can account for the performance consequences of diversity.

Regarding the limitations of our study, a number of limitations must be

considered. First, we must notice that the sample included only one type of teamwork.

This restricts the generalisation of our results. Second, some authors have proposed that

diversity research should examine the interaction between diversity dimensions, and not

to evaluate their effects in isolation (van Knippenberg et al., 2007). We did not consider

the possible interactions between the diversity variables studied and how these

relationships may affect our results.

Diversity is a complex phenomenon that we need to understand given all the

changes that workforce is facing. As a complex phenomenon, many team processes are

involved regarding the effects that diversity may produce in work teams. For instance,

contextual factors may play a role also, as showed in past research (Jehn & Bezrukova,

2004). Although much is still unclear, one thing worthy to notice is that the relationship

between diversity and team outcomes is not as straightforward as past research has

shown.

In this study we showed how team reflexivity could help the performance of

diverse work teams. Teams that are diverse with respect to education seem to reflect

more on their objectives, processes and tasks. This elaboration of task-relevant

information due to the diverse perspectives exchanged, in turn, improves team

performance.

Our findings highlight the importance of focusing on mediator processes to

explain diversity and performance dynamics, contributing to the new approaches that

attempt to ascertain how diversity affects and influences teamwork. More efforts are

needed regarding diversity and team outcomes, but we think that the results presented

here offer a fruitful agenda for future research.

This study has practical implications also. To the extent that members of a team

reflect upon their actions and processes, their performance could be positively affected.

Differences in educational background and thus knowledge and perspectives, seem to

promote the exchange and discussion between members. These practices should be

fostered from team leaders as well as the organizational context. As Schippers et al.

(2003) noticed reflexivity might diminish over time in highly diverse teams. For that

38



reason, it is very important the monitoring and feedback from the team’s leader to

promote and ensure that reflexivity is being adopted by team members. This implies the

necessity to create space and time for the members to dialogue, discuss and exchange

the information they have, assessing how this exchange is applied in the daily work.

39



REFERENCES

Ancona DG, Caldwell DF.1992.Demography and design: Predictors of new product

team performance. Organizational Science.3: 321-341

Bantel KA, Jackson SE.1989. Top management and innovations in Banking: Does

the composition of the team make a difference? Strategic management journal.10:

107-124

Baugh SG, Graen GB.1997. Effects of Team gender and racial composition on

perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group &

Organizational Management . 22:366-388

Brown R. L. (1996) Assessing specific mediational effects in complex theoretical

models. Schools of Medicine and Nursing Technical Report , 2-96 , 1-19

Camelo-Ordaz C, Hernández-Lara AB., Valle-Cabrera R.2005. The relationship

between top management teams and innovative capacity in companies. The Journal

of Management Development . 24:683-705

Campion MA, Medsker G, Higgs C.1993 Relation between work group

characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups.

Personnel Psychology. 46:823-850

Chatman JA, Flynn FJ.2001.The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the

emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of

Management Journal. 44:956-974

Dahlin KB., Weingart LR, Hinds PJ.2005.Team diversity and information use.

Academy of Management Journal . 6:1107-1123

De Dreu C.2002.Team innovation and team effectiveness: the importance of

minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology. 2:295- 298

De Dreu CK., West MA.2001.Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance

of participation in decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology.86:1191-1201

Drach-Zahavy A., Somech A.2002.Team heterogeneity and its relationship with

team support and team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration.40: 44-

66

Earley P.C., Mosakowski E.2000. Creating hybrid cultures: An empirical test of

transnational team functioning Academy of Management Journal .43:26-49

40



European Commission. Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and

Equal Opportunities.2005.The business case for diversity. Good practices in the

workplace, Europe: Free press

Ferrier WJ, Lyon DW.2004.Competitive repertoire simplicity and firm performance:

the moderating role of top management and team heterogeneity.Managerial and

Decision Economics.25:317-327

Gaertner S, Mann J, Dovidio J, Murrel A, Pomare M.1990. How does cooperation

reduce intergroup bias?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.59:692-704

Gibson C, Vermeulen F.2003. A healthy divide: subgroups as a stimulus for Team

Learning Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly.48:202-239

González-Roma V., West MA.2006.Demographic diversity and team innovation.

Manuscript Submitted.

Guzzo RA, Dickson MW.1996.Teams in organizations: recent research on

performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology.47: 307-308

Hambrick DC, Cho T., Chen M.1996.The influence of Top Management Team

Heterogeneity on Firm’s competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly.41:

659-684

Harrison DA., Price KH., Bell MP.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

Hoffman LR., Maier NRF.1961. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by

members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology.62:401-407

Jackson SE., Joshi A.2004. Diversity in social context: a multi-attribute, multilevel

analysis of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational

Behavior.25:675-702

James LR., Mulaik SA., Brett JM.2006. A tale of two methods Organizational

Research Methods.9: 233-244

Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA.1999.Why differences make a difference: A

field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative

Science Quarterly. 44:741-763

Jehn KA, Bezrukova K.2004.A field study of group diversity, workgroup context

and performance. Journal of organizational Behavior. 25:703-729

41



Knouse S, Dansby M.1999.Percentage of Work-Group Diversity and Work Group

effectiveness. The Journal of Psychology. 133:486-494

Mannix E, Neale MA.2005.What differences make a difference? The promise and

reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychology Science.6:31-55

Milliken FJ, Martins L.1996.Searching for common threads: understanding the

multiple effects of diversity and organizational groups. The Academy of

Management Review.21:402-433

O’Reilly CA, Caldwell DF, Barnett WP.1989. Work group demography, social

integration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly.34:21-37

Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM., Xin K.1999.Exploring the black box: an analysis of

work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly.

44:1-28

Richard OC.2000. Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A

resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal.43:164-177

Richard OC, Barnett T, Dwyer S, Chadwick K.2004. Cultural diversity in

management, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial

orientation dimensions. Academy of Journal Management.47:255-266

Schippers M, Den Hartog D, Koopman PL, Wienk JA.2003.Diversity and team

outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity

and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior.24:779-

802

Shaw JB, Barret-Power E.1998.The effects of diversity on small work group,

processes and performance. Human Relations.51:1307-1325

Simons T, Pelled LH, Smith KA.1999.Making use of difference: diversity, debate

and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of

Management Journal.42:662-673

Susaeta Erburu, L, Navas López JE.2005.La diversidad cultural como fuente de

ventaja competitiva. Una aplicación a la empresa multinacional. Cuadernos de

Estudios Empresariales. 15:153-177

Tjosvold D, Hui C, Yu Z.2003.Conflict management and task reflexivity for team

in-role and extra-role performance in China. International Journal of Conflict

Management.14: 141-163

42



Tjosvold D, Tang MML, West MA.2004. Reflexivity and team innovation in China:

The contribution of goal interdependence. Group & Organization Management . 29:

540-559

Tsui AS, Egan TD, O’Reilly C.1992.Being different: relational demography and

organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly.37:549-579

Van Der Vegt GS, Bunderson JS.2005.Learning and performance in

multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy

of Management Journal . 48:532-547

Van Der Vegt GS, Janssen O.2003.Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group

diversity on Innovation. Journal of Management . 29:729-751

Van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CKW, Homan AC.2004.Work Group diversity and

group performance: An integrative Model and Research agenda. Journal of Applied

Psychology.89:1008-1022

Van Knippenberg D, Schippers M.2007.Work Group diversity. Annual Review

Psychology.58:2-27

Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen L.1993.Cultural diversity’s impact on

interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task

groups. Academy of Management Journal.36:590-602

West MA.1996.Reflexivity and Work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration.

In Handbook of Work Group Psychology, ed. MA West, pp. 555-79. Chichester,

UK:Wiley

West MA.2002.Sparkling fountains or Stagnant Pounds: An integrative Model of

Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups. Applied Psychology: An

International Review.51:355-387

Wiersema MF, Bantel KA.1992.Top management team demography and corporate

strategic chance. Academy of Management Journal.31:91-121

Williams K, O’Reilly CA.1998.Demography and Diversity in organizations: a

review of 40 years of research Res. in Organizational Behavior .20:77-140

43

Master Thesis Final Version Carolina Garay 2008

Documents

Transcript of Master Thesis Final Version Carolina Garay 2008