We examine the problem that people who are demographically different from one another face a fundamental challenge in achieving interpersonal closeness in organizational settings. We contribute to the literature by incorporating a discussion of how the status differences that accompany demographic diversity can influence the disclosure of personal information and ultimately interpersonal closeness. Moreover, we highlight the difficult choice on the part of individuals to strategically conceal or reveal status-relevant personal information to others.

This research investigates the impact of allying with socially dissimilar group members on members’ feelings and behavior, and the ultimate performance of the group. In the context of having a newcomer join a group, we conducted a 2 (social similarity of newcomer to oldtimers; in-group or out-group) x 3 (opinion agreement: newcomer has no opinion ally, 1 opinion ally, or 2 opinion allies) interacting group experiment with four-person groups. Groups with out-group newcomers perceived their group interactions as less effective, yet performed better than groups with in-group newcomers. Moreover, this result was not due to newcomers bringing new ideas to the group discussion. Instead, the behavior and feelings of oldtimers who agreed with newcomers (i.e., opinion allies to the newcomer) had a larger impact on the groups’ outcomes. The results add to the idea that surface-level (i.e., social) diversity may ultimately be beneficial for groups even when out-group members do not bring different deep-level task perspectives to the group.

Individuals define themselves, at times, as who they are (e.g., a psychologist) and, at other times, as who they are not (e.g., not an economist). Drawing on social identity, optimal distinctiveness, and balance theories, four studies examined the nature of negational identity relative to affirmational identity. One study explored the conditions that increase negational identification and found that activating the need for distinctiveness increased the accessibility of negational identities. Three additional studies revealed that negational categorization increased outgroup derogation relative to affirmational categorization and the authors argue that this effect is at least partially due to a focus on contrasting the self from the outgroup under negational categorization. Consistent with this argument, outgroup derogation following negational categorization was mitigated when connections to similar others were highlighted. By distinguishing negational identity from affirmational identity, a more complete picture of collective identity and intergroup behavior can start to emerge.

This research explores the impact of dyadic communication opportunities on group norms. We propose a link between dyadic communication and group norms such that the absence of dyadic communication enhances a norm of group unity whereas its presence enhances a norm of faction-forming. In two studies, we demonstrate that the presence of dyadic communication opportunities can both help and hurt group performance and that this depends on a fit between the content of the norm and the wider social context. In competitive negotiation tasks that benefit from group unity, the absence of dyadic communication results in a stronger focus on the group and its future as well as increased group performance. However, in problem solving tasks that benefit from faction-forming, the mere presence of dyadic communication opportunities leads to an increased openness to unique information, disagreement, and group performance. Implications for how to effectively manage technologies that create opportunities for dyadic communication during group discussions are considered.

Four experiments investigated whether race is perceived to be part of the business leader prototype, and if so, whether it could explain differences in evaluations of White and non-White leaders. The first two studies revealed that “being White” is perceived to be an attribute of the business leader prototype, where participants assumed that business leaders more than non-leaders were White, and this inference occurred regardless of base-rates about the organization’s racial composition (Study 1), the racial composition of organizational roles, the business industry, and the types of racial minority groups in the organization (Study 2). The final two studies revealed that a leader categorization explanation could best account for differences in White and non-White leader evaluations, where White targets were evaluated as more effective leaders (Study 3) and as having more leadership potential (Study 4), but only when the leader had recently been given credit for organizational success, consistent with the prediction that leader prototypes are more likely to be used when they confirm and reinforce individualized information about a leader’s performance. The results demonstrate a connection between leader race and leadership categorization.

Work examining the influence of social categorization on human behavior has primarily examined this phenomenon with respect to in-group favoritism, and out-group derogation (Brewer & Brown, 1998). This paper examines the influence that social category diversity (i.e., working with an in-group or out-group member) has on individual levels of motivation. The results of two experiments provide evidence that individuals increase their effort more when being outperformed by an out-group instead of an in-group member (Experiment 1), but only when the potential for social comparison is present (Experiment 2). We discuss the implications of this research for understanding how and why social category diversity may impact individual levels of motivation.

We examined how surface-level diversity (based on race) and deep-level similarities influenced three-person decision-making groups on a hidden-profile task. Surface-level homogeneous groups perceived their information to be less unique and spent less time on the task than surface-level diverse groups. When the groups were given the opportunity to learn about their deep-level similarities prior to the task, group members felt more similar to one another and reported greater perceived attraction, but this was more true for surface-level homogeneous than surface-level diverse groups. Surface-level homogeneous groups performed slightly better after discovering deep-level similarities, but discovering deep-level similarities was not helpful for surface-level diverse groups, who otherwise outperformed surface-level homogeneous groups. We discuss the implications of this research for managing diversity in the workplace.

Diversity researchers have distinguished between surface-level (e.g., social categories) and deep-level (e.g., attitudes, opinions, information, and values) diversity, but have not fully explored the complexities of their simultaneous existence in groups. We examined how the relationship between surface-level and deep-level diversity impacts the emotional and behavioral reactions of dissenting group members and the effectiveness of decision-making groups. We conducted two studies focusing on dissenting social majority members (individuals who hold dissenting deep-level task perspectives yet belong to the surface-level majority) in three-person groups. The results show that surface-level diverse groups (with two similar and one dissimilar individuals) were perceived as more positive and accepting, fostered more persistent and confident voicing of dissenting perspectives, and displayed greater task engagement than surface-level homogeneous groups (containing all similar individuals). Surface-level diversity (both task-relevant and irrelevant) may be beneficial for groups even when the group member who is different on the surface does not have a different deep-level task perspective to share. We discuss implications for understanding how surface-level diversity affects organizational work groups.

As workers strive to manage multiple roles such as work and family, research has begun to focus on how people manage the boundary between work and nonwork roles. This paper contributes to emerging work on boundary theory by examining the extent to which individuals desire to integrate or segment their work and nonwork lives. This desire is conceptualized and measured on a continuum ranging from segmentation (i.e., separation) to integration (i.e., blurring) of work and nonwork roles. We examine the fit between individuals’ desires for integration/segmentation and their access to policies that enable boundary management, suggesting that more policies may not always be better in terms of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Using survey methodology and a sample of 460 employees, we found that desire for greater segmentation does moderate the relationship between the organizational policies one has access to and individuals’ satisfaction and commitment. People who want more segmentation are less satisfied and committed to the organization when they have greater access to integrating policies (e.g., onsite childcare) than when they have less access to such policies. Conversely, people who want greater segmentation are more committed when they have greater access to segmenting policies (e.g., flextime) than when they have less access to such policies. Moreover, the fit between desire for segmentation and organizational policy has an effect on satisfaction and commitment over and above the effects of demographic characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, income, number of children, and the ages of those children.

The impact of congruence between social and knowledge ties on performance in diverse groups was examined. Congruence occurs when group members who are socially tied share the same information and a stranger has any unique information. Incongruence occurs when group members who are socially tied possess different information, and one of them shares information with a stranger. In Experiment 1, three-person groups with congruent social and knowledge ties utilized information more effectively, reported more effective group processes, and outperformed groups with incongruent ties. Experiment 2, which involved four-person groups, examined the role of congruence in groups with either a single minority information holder or two equal-sized subgroups. Congruent groups again outperformed incongruent groups, but this was only true when groups had a minority information holder. There was no difference in the performance of congruent and incongruent groups that had equal-sized subgroups. The implications of these findings for analyses of group composition and decision-making are discussed.

This study investigates how the contribution, identification, and consideration of expertise within groups are affected by gender differences. The authors examined the effects of member expertise and gender on others’ perceptions of expertise, actual and own perceptions of influence, and group performance on a decision-making task. The authors’ findings are consistent with social role theory and expectation states theory. Women were less influential when they possessed expertise, and having expertise decreased how expert others perceived them to be. Conversely, having expertise was relatively positive for men. These differences were reflected in group performance, as groups with a female expert underperformed groups with a male expert. Thus, contrary to common expectations, possessing expertise did not ameliorate the gender effects often seen in workgroups. The findings are discussed in light of their implications for organizational workgroups in which contribution of expertise is critical to group performance.

A problem in joint ventures between U.S. and Asian firms is that cultural differences impede the smooth resolution of conflicts between managers. In a survey of young managers in the U.S., China, Philippines, and India we find support for two hypotheses about cultural differences in conflict style and the cultural values that account for these differences: Chinese managers rely more on an avoiding style because of their relatively high value on conformity and tradition. U.S. managers rely more on a competing style because of their relatively high value on individual achievement.

This study examines the role of group composition and information distribution on group process and decision making. Three-person groups performed a decision task that involved solving a murder mystery (Stasser & Stewart, 1992). Groups were composed of (a) three individuals familiar to each other, (b) two familiar individuals and a stranger, or (c) three strangers. Prior to group discussion, evidence bearing on the case was either fully shared (all members possessed identical information) or partially shared (each member possessed several unique clues to which no other member had access). The results indicate that all-stranger groups were most likely to identify the correct suspect when information was fully shared, however, all-familiar and 2 familiar/1 stranger groups were most likely to identify the correct suspect when critical clues remained unshared. Group process analysis reveals that this pattern of results was due to an "aggregation strategy" on the part of strangers and an "information pooling strategy" on the part of groups composed of familiar individuals.

Contrary to people’s intuitive theories about even and odd numbers and groups, this paper argues that odd-sized groups are often more harmonious than even-sized groups. Studies 1-3 found that people view even numbers more favorably than odd numbers and predict that even-sized groups are more peaceful than odd-sized groups, although these results vary based on group function (social/task) and one’s position in a group (majority/ minority). However, Study 4 involved a natural experiment at Harvard University, and found that White freshmen assigned to odd-sized rooming groups (three or five persons) maintained relationships with White roommates more than did White freshman assigned to even-sized rooming groups (four or six persons), but these patterns did not emerge when Whites roomed with Asians and Blacks. In Study 5, three- and four-person groups without conflict did not differ, but three-person groups with coalitions (two vs. one) produced more positive relationships than four-person groups with coalitions (both two vs. two and three vs. one). We suggest that a group’s even or odd size is an important situational variable that affects its coalitional structure, conflict management, and cohesion.

In two experiments, we examined how social and opinion diversity influenced the argument quality of written preparation for a face-to-face interaction. The results demonstrated that responses to opinion diversity depended on whether one’s coworker was socially similar (i.e., an in-group member) or dissimilar (i.e., an out-group member). In Experiment 1, individuals anticipating interaction with a disagreeing out-group coworker had higher quality arguments than those anticipating interaction with a disagreeing in-group coworker; however, the social identity of the coworker did not affect argument quality when both agreed. Moreover, the results suggested that the level of relationship focus (i.e., focus on the social relationship) exhibited during disagreement directly mediated the link between social diversity and argument quality. In the presence of opinion diversity, individuals were more relationship focused with in-group than with out-group coworkers. In turn, the more relationship focused, the lower the argument quality. In a second experiment, we directly manipulated relationship focus and found further support for the inverse relationship between argument quality and relationship focus. The implications of this work for understanding decision-making in socially diverse teams are explored.

We propose that mood may be an unrecognized but critical factor in the area of knowledge transfer. This idea presents a new perspective, as essentially all previous research on knowledge transfer has focused on cognitive factors. We tested this view using a corporate acquisition simulation done via instant messaging, where one manager (knowledge sender) was given more information than his or her partner (receiver). Receivers in a negative mood were 7.6 times less likely to learn from and take action based on the sender’s knowledge than were receivers in a neutral or positive mood. Analysis of the transcripts revealed that the reason for this difference was that receivers in a strong negative mood were more apt to reject new knowledge and be closed-minded; i.e., they were less willing to consider what the other person was saying. In addition, this lack of open-mindedness made the negative-mood receivers less trusted or liked by their partners, and led to the contagion of the negative mood to these partners as well, even in the relatively sterile context of electronic communication.

The purpose of this study was to compare evaluations of female leaders to male leaders in chief leadership positions to ascertain if women leaders are evaluated favorably to men and to assess if women leaders benefit from a gendered stereotype that differs from women in lower and middle management positions. Results of a two (CEO gender: male, female) by two (attribution: internal, external) by two (performance: successful, unsuccessful) experimental design showed that when organizational success was attributed to internal attributions female CEOs were evaluated more favorably than male CEOs on both agentic and communal abilities. These findings suggest that women in chief leadership positions activate a subtype that distinguishes highly successful women from the stereotype of women in general (i.e., low agentic characteristics, high communal characteristics) and the counter-stereotype for women managers that sometimes elicits the backlash effect (i.e., high agentic characteristics, low communal characteristics).

Many organizational efforts to improve co-worker relationships entail inducing employees to bring their “whole selves” into the workplace, which for employees often means disclosing personal experiences at work. Several psychological theories suggest that increased self-disclosure will lead to better relationships in organizational work groups. However, this chapter considers the factors impacting self-disclosure in demographically diverse settings. We posit that although self-disclosure has led to closer relationships in past research, it may not increase cohesion for employees in demographically diverse work groups, or those who are demographically dissimilar from the majority of their co-workers.

Understanding the impact of diversity on group process and performance has been the focus of much research, yet there are still unanswered questions about how diversity impacts group process and performance. One factor that is clearly a consequence of group composition is affective tone. In this chapter, we discuss the impact of diversity and homogeneity on affective responses from group members and argue that the relatively negative affective tone experienced in diverse groups may fuel more systematic information processing and improve decision-making performance. The implications for managing both positive and negative affect in groups will be considered.

Evaluations play an important role in an organization’s efforts to increase diversity. In this chapter we discuss two common evaluation biases – out-group discrimination and in-group favoritism – that are particularly relevant for concerns of increasing diversity. We examine the ethical implications of these biases, as well as the reasons individuals attempt to avoid displaying them. Some research has considered the adjustments individuals make to avoid the appearance of out-group discrimination (Carver, Glass, & Katz, 1978; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986); however, little research has considered the adjustments individuals may make to avoid the appearance of in-group favoritism. We discuss two critical factors that may impact when the latter adjustment is more likely to occur: the relative size and status of sub-groups. Paradoxically, these adjustments may negatively impact organizational efforts to increase the diversity of their workforce. We discuss the implications for evaluation processes (e.g., hiring, firing, promotion) in organizations.

In this chapter we discuss the role of teams in dynamic organizations and the particular challenges that they face in a dynamic environment. We focus on the constant membership and task changes that teams must accommodate in dynamic organizations. We further discuss how these changes might obscure information about who has expertise in the group. We suggest taht these problems are, in large part, due to the increase use of inappropriate status cues. We offer several propositions that might hlep management scholars who are concerned about the process and performance of work teams.

This is an edited volume in an ongoing series. Chapters covering recent issues of diversity with an introduction by Katherine W. Phillips, and capstone chapter by Jennifer A. Chatman.