Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups - Homan et al. - 2007 - Article

Organizations often rely on groups to make important decisions. When group members differ with regards to their expertise, these groups could outperform individual decision making in terms of the quality of the decision they reach. Thus, organizations often rely on cross-functional work groups and project teams with the aim to stimulate innovation, solve problems, and make decisions. However, often informational diversity (different expertise) goes hand in hand with differences on other dimensions, such as demographic characteristics and deeply held values and beliefs. When different kinds (dimensions) of diversity converge (example: when all team members with technical expertise are male and all team members with marketing expertise are female), this leads to the emergence of 'diversity faultlines'. These diversity faultlines may disrupt group processes. There have been a lot of studies conducted that showed the negative effects of diversity faultlines on group functioning. Diversity faultlines are generally believed to negatively impact group processes and performances. In contrast, the current study aims to show that groups with diversity faultlines can benefit from their informational diversity, by focusing on the beliefs of the group members about diversity. 

Informational diversity and diversity faultlines

The definition of informational diversity is 'differences in knowledge bases and perspectives that members bring to the group'. According to van Knippenberg and colleagues, informational diversity can enhance group performance by stimulating the elaboration of task-relevant information and perspectives. Group information elaboration is defined as 'the exchange of information and perspectives, feeding back the results of this individual-level processing into the group, and discussion and integration of the implications'. Because of this deeper and more extensive consideration of task-relevant information, diverse groups may outperform more homogenous groups on tasks with clear information-processing and decision-making requirements. 

An example of the above is cross-functional surgical teams consisting of surgeons, radiologists, anaesthetists, and surgical nurses. To reach high-quality performance, team members must use their own expertise to inform other team members about the different issues involved in the specific operation; carefully process the information, opinions, and perspectives introduced by other team members to understand the implications for their own area of medical expertise; feed the implications back to the team; and integrate these implications to provide the best possible care.

So, different perspectives in a team can lead to enhanced team functioning through information elaboration, but when informational diversity converges with other diversity dimensions (such as gender, personality differences, attitudes or values), this may reduce the positive effect. When there are different dimensions of diversity that converge, it may lead to a diversity faultline that may elicit subgroup categorization (us-them distinction). This can lead to less trust and less motivation to cooperate with other group members. 

However, the authors believe that the performance of groups with diversity faultlines does not necessarily need to be affected. According to them, the performance of such groups depends on group members' beliefs about the value of diversity.

Diversity beliefs

Diversity beliefs are defined as the beliefs about the value of diversity to work group functioning. Diversity may affect the extent to which one's own work group is perceived as being a good group. 'Good' may refer to task performance as well as to other aspects of group functioning. When people believe more in the value of diversity for work group functioning, this may lead them to respond more favorably to work group diversity. For example, van Knippenberg and colleagues showed that the relationship between diversity and group members' identification with their work group was moderated by diversity beliefs. This means that when individuals believed that diversity was beneficial for the task at hand, diversity was positively related to group identification. When individuals believe in the value of similarity, diversity was negatively related to group identification. 

Also, similarly, Ely and Thomas showed that when an organization's perspective on diversity emphasizes cultural diversity as an important value for the organization, members reported feeling more valued and respected, reported a higher quality of intergroup relations and felt that they were more successful than when the organization's perspective was not focused on the potential value of diversity.

Thus, pro-diversity beliefs lead groups to benefit from their informational diversity. It may lead group members to respond favorably to the group and the diversity of it. 

The present study

The present study extends the previous work on the effects of diversity beliefs on groups' use of their informational diversity. The authors focused on groups with a diversity faultline, because the potential positive effects of informational differences are more likely to be impeded when dimensions of diversity combine to form a faultline. Studies have shown that in teams with strong faultlines, the negative effects of diversity in general outweigh the positive effects. 

When groups have to perform complex tasks that require information processing, creativity, and collaborative decision making, the positive effects of work group diversity on group performance are more likely to emerge. This is explained by  the need to exchange diverse task-related information. Therefore, the authors studied the interactive effects of diversity beliefs and informational diversity in a group decision-making context. They expected (hypothesized) that even under faultline conditions, groups may make good use of informational diversity when they hold beliefs favoring group diversity rather than homogeneity. They also expected performance to be affected more by diversity beliefs in informationally diverse groups than in informationally homogenous groups, because especially informationally diverse groups need to elaborate task-relevant information and perspectives to perform well.

Thus, there are three hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Diversity beliefs moderate the effect of informational diversity on group performance. Informationally diverse groups perform better when group members believe in the value of diversity rather than similarity, whereas the performance of informationally homogenous groups is less affected by diversity beliefs.

Hypothesis 2

Diversity beliefs moderate the effect of informational diversity on elaboration of task-relevant information. Informationally diverse groups engage in more elaboration of task-relevant information when group members believe in the value of diversity rather than similarity, whereas elaboration in informationally homogenous groups is less affected by diversity beliefs.

Hypothesis 3

The effect of diversity beliefs on performance in informationally diverse groups is mediated by elaboration of task-relevant information.

They tested these hypothesis using an experimental study of four-person groups, who worked interactively on a complex decision-making task in which they had to generate decision alternatives and decide about the alternatives adopted.

Discussion

According to the authors, diversity in work groups can lead to enhanced group performance. However, diverse groups are often unable to reach this benefit. They proposed that when group members believe in the value of diversity, they are more likely to effectively use their informational resources. The findings showed that diversity beliefs do indeed moderate the relationship between informational diversity, which means that informationally diverse groups perform better when they hold pro-diversity beliefs compared to pro-similarity beliefs. There have been a lot of scholars who argued that diversity beliefs and related constructs play an important role in teams. However, this has never been tested before. Thus, the present findings are a contribution to attempts to identify the contingencies of the effects of work group diversity. The present study also showed that the effect of diversity beliefs in informationally diverse groups was mediated by group elaboration of task-relevant information. Van Knippenberg and colleagues had already proposed that information elaboration is what underlies the positive effects of diversity in group performance. The present findings support their theoretical analysis and thus serves as evidence.

The authors do note that one should not conclude too much from the main effect of informational diversity on information elaboration. They explain this. First, because of the nature of the task, there is a higher need to engage in information elaboration in informationally heterogeneous groups than in informationally homogeneous groups. The individual members of informationally diverse teams do not possess all the relevant information prior to group interaction. Therefore, they need to exchange information with the other group members to get a thorough understanding of the task at hand. In contrast, members of homogeneous groups all have the same relevant information before group interaction. Thus, this is an inherent difference between informationally homogeneous and informationally heterogeneous groups. Second, the means for the interaction show that the main effect of informational diversity on information elaboration is fully qualified by the interaction with diversity beliefs. This means that it can be solely attributed only to groups with heterogeneous information and pro-diversity beliefs. Lastly, the finding that performance is more contingent on diversity beliefs in the heterogeneous information conditions than in the homogeneous information conditions indicates that it is the interaction between informational diversity and diversity beliefs, instead of the main effect of informational diversity, that predicts performance. Another note of the authors is that their results concern group processes and performance under faultline conditions. 

An important implication of the present findings is that the effective management of a diverse workforce should involve the management of diversity beliefs. For example, managers could communicate their belief in the value of diversity, and they could explain how task performance can benefit from diversity of information and perspectives. Diversity training could also affect diversity beliefs. However, most diversity trainings are limited to making people aware of stereotypes about other groups, and changing people's feelings about those groups. However, diversity trainings would be more effective when the aim is to manage people's feelings about diversity itself and to make them aware of the potential value of being a member of a diverse team. 

Future research could focus on developing a theory about the origins of diversity beliefs. Previous research suggests three antecedents of diversity beliefs. First, van Knippenberg and colleagues identified task requirements as a source of diversity beliefs. They showed that individuals working on a task that required diverse perspectives developed more positive attitudes toward diversity compared to individuals who worked on a task that required homogeneous perspectives. Second, when people have experience with working in a diverse group, it is likely that those experiences will shape their beliefs about diversity in the future. Finally, Flynn and Strauss showed that individual differences may affect beliefs about different ethnic groups and diversity in general. One variable of interest is openness to experience. Thus, exploring individual differences as well as situational differences as determinants of diversity beliefs.