Organizational life and behaviour are shaped by group diversity and can have positive and negative effects on job performance. However, research on the relationship between performance and group diversity is inconclusive. Therefore, van Kippenberg and his colleagues (2004) propose the categorization-elaboration model (CEM). The model tries to explain the moderator and mediator variables that were previously ignored in diversity research. Information and decision-making, and social categorization are important in interaction and influence intergroup bias. These processes also influence elaboration (in-depth processing) and reviewing task-relevant information and perspectives.
The definition of diversity is the difference between individuals that lead to the perception that one individual is different from another. The dimensions are indefinite, it can be race, age, gender, religious background and so on. Previous research mainly focused on age and nationality, educational and functional background. It is argued that social category difference is the most important factor in the perception of diversity. Informational -and functional diversity reflect differences in functional and educational background, which are important for job performance but are less visible. Williams and O’Reilly (1998) identified two factors that are important in diversity research:
The social categorization perspective where similarities and differences are used a to categorize someone as part of a group. Riordan and Shore (1997) found that the higher the homogeneity of the work group, the more committed the group members are.
The information/decision making perspective states that diverse groups should outperform homogeneous groups. This is because diverse groups are likely to be better in processing different sorts of information and combine this into a task-relevant solution.
The social categorization perspective focuses more on relational aspects, whereas the information/decision making perspective focuses on task-related aspects of group functioning.
The positive and negative effects of diversity are not completely clear yet. Therefore, the categorization-elaboration model is proposed by the authors. This model identifies some reasons why there are so many inconsistent findings in diversity research:
Diversity research lacks focus on group information processing;
Diversity research worked with an oversimplification of the conceptualization of social processes and categories;
Diversity research studies information -and decision-making processes as well as social categorisation processes in isolation. However, these processes interact and should be considered together, like in the proposed CEM-model;
The assumption used in diversity research, that information/decision-making and social categorization are related to specific dimensions of diversity;
The CEM-model exists from several components to describe the effects of diversity in organizations. The authors propose that diversity in a group is positively associated with the in-depth processing of task-relevant information and perspectives. Group members can exchange and discuss their ideas that are relevant to the group task. The model is consistent with the social categorization perspective on three factors:
Cognitive accessibility, when it is easy to make a social categorization this is because differences between categories are cognitively activated.
Normative fit is the extend to which a categorization makes subjective sense to members of the group.
Comparative fit is the extend to which the subgroups are yielded into high intragroup similarity and differences.
Elaboration is described as the exchange of perspectives and information. Diversity can have a positive effect on elaboration because group-discussion and integration can yield better, and more innovative solutions to a problem. Therefore, the information/decision making perspective argues a heterogenous group outperforms a homogenous group. Empirical evidence supports this claim. This leads to the first proposition of the model:
- The main underlying process of positive effects of diversity on group performance is the in-depth processing and elaboration of task relevant information.
According to the information/decision making perspective, group diversity increases the outcome of creative solutions due to more elaboration of task-relevant information. However, elaboration is not always the most productive method. When performing routine tasks, elaboration can cause counterproductivity because reasonable procedures are abandoned. Thus, diversity is positively related to complex task productivity. The moderating effect of task-complexity is described in the second proposition:
- Task requirements and complexity is a moderator of the relationship between performance and diversity. Diversity is positively related to performance when creative and innovative solutions are required.
Besides task-complexity, another moderating effect is task motivation. Motivation is the core moderator of deep-level processing and shapes social perception and judgement. The role of motivation is discussed in proposition three and four:
Diversity benefits performance when the motivation of group members to perform the task is high.
Elaboration and good performance are stimulated by diversity when group member task ability is high.
The connection between diversity, social categorization and intergroup bias is also very important. It is argued that social categorization is a product of the degree of difference between members of a group and is inevitable. However, the empirical evidence relies on common practice using false assumptions. Instead, the salience of social categorization is discussed. The self-categorization theory states that the salience of a categorization is based on three components, comparative fit, normative fit and cognitive accessibility. Differences between group members do not necessarily lead to categorization, but the readiness to use the categorization and whether the categorization is subjectively meaningful are predictors of the extent to which categorization results in homogeneity or not.
- Social categorization in work groups depends on the interaction of normative fit, comparative fit and accessibility of social categorizations.
The relationship between social categorization and intergroup bias is described in the sixth and seventh proposition of the model. Intergroup bias is the more positive perception towards an in-group member compared to the perception of an out-group member. Intergroup bias tends to be lower when sub-groups had their own distinctive tasks in an organization.
The result of social categorization is intergroup bias, which is disruptive to the overall functioning of the group. This is to the extent that the identity that is implied by the categorization is challenged.
When intergroup biases are caused by work-group diversity they are disruptive to the elaboration process of task-relevant information. This has a negative impact on group performance.
Social category diversity and informational diversity can be considered different aspects of diversity. However, they are not tied to these specific dimensions. Some differences between group members might not seem task relevant, such as gender or marital status, but might be associated with task-relevant perspectives on what is important for employees. These differences might confound informational differences.
- All the diversity dimensions can elicit social categorization processes and elaboration processes.
The CEM addresses the inconsistency in findings for performance and diversity and outlines the implications for further diversity research. It also outlines some consequences for management of diversities. The model suggests that work-group diversity potential benefits should be harvested. Intergroup biases should be prevented together with their disruptive effects. Furthermore, negative affective-evaluative responses to the group and group members could result in a disruption of elaboration of task-relevant information. The moderators of elaboration, categorization and intergroup bias should be carefully considered when providing guidelines for diverse work groups.
The article started with the analysis of inconsistencies between various findings on the relationship between work-group diversity and performance. For this purpose, the categorization-elaboration model (CEM) was proposed. The effects of diversity can be seen trough the eyes of two perspectives, first is social categorization and second is information/decision making processes. The CEM addresses both perspectives and discusses the possible influence of work-group diversity effects on performance. The authors have eight propositions that elaborate on both positive and negative effect of diversity in work groups. These propositions can benefit future research. However, the influence of diversity and inclusion in work groups should be further researched. The influence on commitment and turnover could be explored together with their impact on group performance. The present study provides an overview of the possible effects of diversity in terms of social categorization and information processing. Several theoretical accounts have been integrated and can be combined to realistic advice on how to manage job performance in diverse work groups.
Organizational life and behaviour are shaped by group diversity and can have positive and negative effects on job performance. However, research on the relationship between performance and group diversity is inconclusive. Therefore, van Kippenberg and his colleagues (2004) propose the categorization-elaboration model (CEM). The model tries to explain the moderator and mediator variables that were previously ignored in diversity research.
The definition of diversity is the difference between individuals that lead to the perception that one individual is different from another. The dimensions are indefinite, it can be race, age, gender, religious background and so on. Previous research mainly focused on age and nationality, educational and functional background. It is argued that social category difference is the most important factor in the perception of diversity. Informational -and functional diversity reflect differences in functional and educational background
The present study provides an overview of the possible effects of diversity in terms of social categorization and information processing. Several theoretical accounts have been integrated and can be combined to realistic advice on how to manage job performance in diverse work groups.
Make sure that you know the eight propositions and whether they reflect the information processing/decision making perspective or the social categorization perspective.
What are the main positive -and negative outcomes of diverse work groups?
Add new contribution