Andrew M. Carton

The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance

Scholars have invoked subgroups in a number of theories related to teams, yet certain tensions in the literature remain unresolved. In this article, we address 2 of these tensions, both relating to how subgroups are configured in work teams: (a) whether teams perform better with a greater number of subgroups and (b) whether teams perform better when they have imbalanced subgroups (majorities and minorities are present) or balanced subgroups (subgroups are of equal size). We predict that the impact of the number and balance of subgroups depends on the type of subgroup-whether subgroups are formed according to social identity (i.e., identity-based subgroups) or information processing (i.e., knowledge-based subgroups). We first propose that teams are more adversely affected by 2 identity-based subgroups than by any other number, yet the uniquely negative impact of a 2-subgroup configuration is not apparent for knowledge-based subgroups. Instead, a larger number of knowledge-based subgroups is beneficial for performance, such that 2 subgroups is worse for performance when compared with 3 or more subgroups but better for performance when compared with no subgroups or 1 subgroup. Second, we argue that teams perform better when identity-based subgroups are imbalanced yet knowledge-based subgroups are balanced. We also suggest that there are interactive effects between the number and balance of subgroups-however, the nature of this interaction depends on the type of subgroup. To test these predictions, we developed and validated an algorithm that measures the configurational properties of subgroups in organizational work teams. Results of a field study of 326 work teams from a multinational organization support our predictions.

Why Do Racial Slurs Remain Prevalent in the Workplace? Integrating Theory on Intergroup Behavior

Racial slurs are prevalent in organizations; however, the social context in which racial slurs are exchanged remains poorly understood. To address this limitation, we integrate three intergroup theories (social dominance, gendered prejudice, and social identity) and complement the traditional emphasis on aggressors and targets with an emphasis on observers. In three studies, we test two primary expectations: (1) when racial slurs are exchanged, whites will act in a manner more consistent with social dominance than blacks; and (2) this difference will be greater for white and black men than for white and black women. In a survey ( n = 471), we show that whites are less likely to be targets of racial slurs and are more likely to target blacks than blacks are to target them. We also show that the difference between white and black men is greater than the difference between white and black women. In an archival study that spans five years ( n = 2,480), we found that white men are more likely to observe racial slurs than are black men, and that the difference between white and black men is greater than the difference between white and black women. In a behavioral study ( n = 133), analyses showed that whites who observe racial slurs are more likely to remain silent than blacks who observe slurs. We also find that social dominance orientation (SDO) predicts observer silence and that racial identification enhances the effect of race on SDO for men, but not for women. Further, mediated moderation analyses show that SDO mediates the effect of the interaction between race, gender, and racial identification on observer silence.

“I’m Not Mopping the Floors, I’m Putting a Man on the Moon”: How NASA Leaders Enhanced the Meaningfulness of Work by Changing the Meaning of Work:

It is assumed that leaders can boost the motivation of employees by communicating the organization’s ultimate aspirations, yet evidence on the effectiveness of this tactic is equivocal. On some occasions, it causes employees to view their work as more meaningful. At other times, it causes them to become dispirited. These inconsistent findings may in part be explained by a paradox: the very features that make ultimate aspirations meaningful—their breadth and timelessness—undermine the ability of employees to see how their daily responsibilities are associated with them. To understand how leaders can help employees resolve this paradox, I analyzed archival evidence to explore the actions of President John F. Kennedy when leading NASA in the 1960s. I found that Kennedy enacted four sensegiving steps, each of which helped employees see a stronger connection between their work and NASA’s ultimate aspirations. When this connection was strongest, employees construed their day-to-day work not as short-term tasks (“I’m building electrical circuits”) but as the pursuit of NASA’s long-term objective (“I’m putting a man on the moon”) and the aspiration this objective symbolized (“I’m advancing science”). My findings redirect research by conceptualizing leaders as architects who motivate employees most effectively when they provide a structural blueprint that maps the connections between employees’ everyday work and the organization’s ultimate aspirations.

A FAULTLINE-BASED MODEL OF TEAM LEADERSHIP.

Modern work teams operate in environments where increasingly salient member differences lead to the emergence subgroups. Building on findings from the faultline literature, we propose that team mem...

The impact of organizational performance on the emergence of Asian American leaders.

Despite remarkably high levels of education and income, Asian Americans remain underrepresented at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Existing work suggests that a mismatch between the prototypical characteristics of business leaders (e.g., dominance) and stereotypes associated with Asian Americans (e.g., submissiveness) lowers the likelihood that Asian Americans will emerge as leaders. We predict that this reluctance to appoint Asian Americans will be attenuated when organizations experience performance decline because decision makers believe Asian Americans are inclined to sacrifice their self-interest to improve the welfare of others. We found support for these predictions using a multimethod approach. In an archival study of 4,951 CEOs across five decades, we find that Asian Americans were appointed almost two-and-a-half times more often during decline than nondecline (Study 1). Then, in three studies, we show that this pattern occurs because evaluators (a) prefer self-sacrificing leaders more when organizations are experiencing decline than success (Study 2); (b) expect Asian Americans leaders to behave in self-sacrificing ways in general (Study 3); and, consequently, (c) perceive that Asian Americans are better equipped to be leaders during decline than success (Study 4). We consider these findings in tandem with a set of exploratory analyses. This includes our finding that organizations experience decline only 12% of the time, suggesting that evaluators deem Asian Americans to be suitable leaders in circumstances that occur infrequently and are short-lived.