Article summary with Facing differences with an open mind: openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups by Homan a.o. - 2008

Introduction

Diversity is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it can enhance team performance due to an increase in information and knowledge; on the other hand, it can disrupt team performance due to the creation of subgroups, which hinders the use of all the available information. The main questions the authors are trying to answer is: when will the positive or the negative effects of diversity occur? Their proposition is that there are moderators that determine when and why diversity has positive or negative effects on performance, namely: salience of diversity (situational aspects), openness to experience (which is a personality factor), and information elaboration.

Literature review and hypotheses

According to the decision-making perspective, diversity has a positive influence on team functioning through information elaboration. According to the social categorization perspective, diversity has a negative influence on team functioning through subgroup formation and intergroup bias. So, there is some inconsistency in the literature. Van Knippenberg states that there is interplay between those two processes. Whether people categorize subgroups depends upon the salience of subgroups.

The salience of intragroup differences is influenced by the comparative fit of the subgroup categorization, which is the extent to which categorization results in clear between-group differences and within-group similarities. The salience of intragroup differences depends on the correlation among diversity-related variables and situational aspects such as the reward structure. The reward structure can either reinforce division of subgroups (faultlines), or it can cut across the differences (lower salience of subgroups in cross-categorization), or it can emphasize a superordinate team identity (this promotes lower intragroup differences).

There is a faultline when several dimensions of diversity converge to activate diversity faultlines, this can undermine group performance. The corresponding reward structure would be on the basis of subgroup performance.

There is a cross-categorization when group members differ on multiple dimensions that are uncorrelated, this makes social categorization hard because there is low comparative fit, which results in low salience of subgroups. The corresponding reward structure would be one that cuts through demographic differences.

There is a superordinate group identity when the group as a whole is emphasized, within-group differences become less salient because there is low comparative fit. The corresponding reward structure would be one based on group performance.

• Hypothesis 1: diverse teams in which diversity is cross-cut by reward structure perform better than diverse teams in which reward structure contributes to diversity faultline.
• Hypothesis 2: diverse teams in which there is a superordinate group identity perform better than diverse teams in which there is a faultline.
  • Openness to experience is an individual’s willingness to explore, tolerate, and consider new and unfamiliar ideas and experiences. Openness to experience should enable diverse teams to make better use of their differences and perform better.
• Hypothesis 3: diverse teams in which there is high openness to experience perform better than diverse teams in which there is low openness to experience.
• Hypothesis 4: diversity salience and openness to experience interact to predict team performance: teams in which diversity is salient (faultline and cross-categorization) will benefit more from high openness to experience, relative to teams in which diversity salience is low (superordinate group identity).
  • Furthermore, the authors propose that information elaboration mediates the positive effect of openness to experience in diverse teams. When you are open-minded about dissimilar others, this foster information elaboration in a diverse group, which is good.
• Hypothesis 5a: Information elaboration mediates the impact of openness to experience on performance of diverse teams.
• Hypothesis 5b: Information elaboration mediates the interactive effects of openness and diversity salience on team performance.

Methods

Four-person teams in which there were always 2 males and 2 females engaged in a Distributed Dynamic Decision-Making simulation (they had to defend a military base: every person had their own region to defend). Based on the reward structure, 3 groups were created: faultline (North team = 2 men, South team = 2 women, rewards based on subgroup performance), cross-categorization (North team = 1 man, 1 woman, South team = 1 man, 1 woman, rewards based on subgroup performance), and superordinate identity (in which there were team level rewards). Before the task, openness to experience was measured with the NEO-PI. The dependent variable was performance (the number of point in the game), and information elaboration (which was measured with a self-report scale, team scores were averaged).

Results

Hypothesis 1 and 2 were confirmed: cross-categorization teams performed better than faultline teams, and superordinate identity teams performed better than faultline teams. So: superordinate identity > cross-categorization > faultline. Hypothesis 3 was also confirmed: high openness to experience teams performed better than low openness to experience teams. Hypothesis 4 was also confirmed: for teams in which diversity is salient (faultline and cross-categorization teams), high openness to experience promotes team performance when compared to superordinate identity teams in which diversity is not so salient. The worst performance was in the case of faultline and low openness to experience. The best performance was in the case of cross-categorization and high openness to experience. Hypothesis 5a was confirmed: there was a full mediation of information elaboration in the relationship between openness to experience and performance. Finally, hypothesis 5b was also confirmed: since differences are salient in faultline and cross-categorization conditions, information elaboration is only a mediator in these conditions, but not in the superordinate identity condition.

Discussion

Conclusion: outcomes of diversity on team performance depends on the salience of this diversity and on how people feel about diversity: are they open to it or not. Practical implications of this research:

• Select team members with high openness to experience, and then make use of cross-categorization where diversity is high but subgroups are not so salient.

• When diverse teams have members with low openness to experience, then advocate pro-diversity beliefs or install a superordinate identity (this decreases diversity salience and prevents subgroup formation).

• Create cross-categorization teams in which the focus is on interpersonal differences (not inter-subgroup differences).

• Or, create a dual identity: both a superordinate identity and a subgroup identity.