Astrid C. Homan

Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda

Research on the relationship between work group diversity and performance has yielded inconsistent results. To address this problem, the authors propose the categorization-elaboration model (CEM), which reconceptualizes and integrates information/decision making and social categorization perspectives on work-group diversity and performance. The CEM incorporates mediator and moderator variables that typically have been ignored in diversity research and incorporates the view that information/decision making and social categorization processes interact such that intergroup biases flowing from social categorization disrupt the elaboration (in-depth processing) of task-relevant information and perspectives. In addition, the authors propose that attempts to link the positive and negative effects of diversity to specific types of diversity should be abandoned in favor of the assumption that all dimensions of diversity may have positive as well as negative effects. The ways in which these propositions may set the agenda for future research in diversity are discussed.

Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance

Faultline theory suggests that negative effects of team diversity are better understood by considering the influence of different dimensions of diversity in conjunction, rather than for each dimension separately. We develop and extend the social categorization analysis that lies at the heart of faultline theory to identify a factor that attenuates the negative influence of faultlines: the extent to which the team has shared objectives. The hypothesized moderating role of shared objectives received support in a study of faultlines formed by differences in gender, tenure, and functional background in 42 top management teams. The focus on top management teams has the additional benefit of providing the first test of the relationship between diversity faultlines and objective indicators of organizational performance. We discuss how these findings, and the innovative way in which we operationalized faultlines, extend faultline theory and research as well as offer guidelines to manage diversity faultlines.

Believing shapes seeing: The impact of diversity beliefs on the construal of group composition

Previous research has suggested that diversity effects depend on how group members perceive their group’s composition. However, what determines how diversity is perceived is unclear. We argue that the way in which group members construe their group’s diversity is shaped by group members’ beliefs about the value in diversity. Focusing on groups with objective subgroups, we show in two studies that the more group members value diversity, the more likely they are to construe their diversity in terms of individual differences and the less likely they are to construe their diversity in terms of subgroups. We also show that diversity construal is only affected by diversity beliefs during intellectual tasks (where diversity matters), but not during physical tasks.

Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of diverse work groups.

We conducted an experiment to show how the interplay between informational diversity and other dimensions of diversity can account for some of the inconsistent effects of informational diversity in previous research. 70 four-person groups involved in a decision-making task received homogeneous or heterogeneous information. By manipulating gender composition and bogus personality feedback we created groups that either had a potential faultline (a basis for subgroup categorization) or were homogeneous on these dimensions. In potential faultline groups, heterogeneity of information either converged with or cross-cut the other dimensions of diversity. Results showed that informational diversity enhanced group functioning when it was crossed rather than converged with the potential faultline.

On Angry Leaders and Agreeable Followers How Leaders’ Emotions and Followers’ Personalities Shape Motivation and Team Performance

Do followers perform better when their leader expresses anger or when their leader expresses happiness? We propose that this depends on the follower’s level of agreeableness. Anger is associated with hostility and conflict—states that are at odds with agreeable individuals’ goals. Happiness facilitates affiliation and positive relations—states that are in line with agreeable individuals’ goals. Accordingly, the two studies we conducted showed that agreeableness moderates the effects of a leader’s emotional displays. In a scenario study, participants with lower levels of agreeableness responded more favorably to an angry leader, whereas participants with higher levels of agreeableness responded more favorably to a neutral leader. In an experiment involving four-person teams, teams composed of participants with lower average levels of agreeableness performed better when their leader expressed anger, whereas teams composed of participants with higher average levels of agreeableness performed better when their leader expressed happiness. Team performance was mediated by experienced workload, which was highest among agreeable followers with an angry leader. Besides having important practical implications, the findings shed new light on the fundamental question of how emotional expressions regulate social behavior.

Emotional influence at work: Take it EASI

Research on emotions in organizations has traditionally taken an intrapersonal approach, examining how an organization member’s emotions influence his or her own cognitions, attitudes, and behavior. We argue that a full understanding of the role of emotions in organizations requires a complementary focus on their interpersonal effects—that is, how one worker’s emotions influence the feelings, cognitions, attitudes, and behavior of others. We advance Emotions as Social Information (EASI) theory, which posits that emotional expressions exert interpersonal effects by triggering affective reactions and/or inferential processes in targets, depending on the target’s information processing and the perceived appropriateness of the emotional expression. We review evidence from four domains of organizational behavior: customer service, group decision making, negotiation, and leadership. We call for new research that examines emotions in greater detail (discrete emotions, intensity, authenticity), studies different settings (organizational change, personnel selection), and considers temporal dynamics (frequency, long-term outcomes).

Breaking the Rules to Rise to Power: How Norm Violators Gain Power in the Eyes of Others

Powerful people often act at will, even if the resulting behavior is inappropriate—hence the famous proverb “power corrupts.” Here, we introduce the reverse phenomenon—violating norms signals power. Violating a norm implies that one has the power to act according to one’s own volition in spite of situational constraints, which fuels perceptions of power. Four studies support this hypothesis. Individuals who took coffee from another person’s can (Study 1), violated rules of bookkeeping (Study 2), dropped cigarette ashes on the floor (Study 3), or put their feet on the table (Study 4) were perceived as more powerful than individuals who did not show such behaviors. The effect was mediated by inferences of volitional capacity, and it replicated across different methods (scenario, film clip, face-to-face interaction), different norm violations, and different indices of power (explicit measures, expected emotions, and approach/inhibition tendencies). Implications for power, morality, and social hierarchy are discussed.

Tainted visions: The effect of visionary leader behaviors and leader categorization tendencies on the financial performance of ethnically diverse teams.

Despite the increasing prevalence of ethnic diversity, findings regarding its effects on team performance remain contradictory. We suggest that past inconsistencies can be reconciled by examining the joint impact of leader behavior and leader categorization tendencies in ethnically diverse teams. We propose that leaders who exhibit high levels of visionary leader behavior and also have the tendency to categorize their team members into in- and out-groups will facilitate a negative effect of ethnic diversity on team communication and financial performance, whereas leaders who exhibit visionary behaviors but do not tend to categorize will lead ethnically diverse teams to positive outcomes. We find support for these ideas in a study of 100 retail outlets.

How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong.

This study explores the role of intragroup dynamics in intergroup conflict. In a computer-mediated negotiation experiment (N = 107), we investigated how a group representative’s standing in the group, group norm, and the representative’s need to belong influence behavior in intergroup negotiations. We hypothesized that the extent to which peripheral representatives adhere to group norms is contingent on their need to belong, whereas prototypical representatives behave in norm-congruent ways regardless of their need to belong. In support of this idea, results showed that prototypicals behaved more cooperatively when the group norm prescribed cooperation rather than competition. By contrast, peripherals only adhered to the group norm when they had a high need to belong. These findings suggest that peripherals only represent the interests of their group when doing so furthers their self-interest. We discuss implications for theorizing about prototypicality, social exclusion, and conformity to group norms.

Considering diversity: The positive effects of considerate leadership in diverse teams.

Three studies examined the role of leader consideration in diverse teams. Based on the categorization-elaboration model, we argue that leader consideration can address the negative group processes that result from categorization processes in diverse teams as well as influence the perceptions of the team’s diversity. Studies 1a and 1b focus on the leadership preferences of members of heterogeneous versus homogeneous teams. Results show that participants faced with the prospect of working in a diverse team had a higher preference for considerate leadership than participants expecting to work in a homogeneous team. In Study 2, we examined whether diverse teams indeed function better with a leader who scores higher on considerate leadership, and whether this can be explained by changes in the ways in which the leader and followers perceive the team’s diversity. An interaction between group diversity and consideration shows that highly considerate leaders improved team functioning for heterogeneous (but not homogeneous) teams, and that leader individuation, or the ability of the leader to see members as unique individuals, explained the positive effects of considerate leadership on the functioning of diverse teams.