Katherine W. Phillips

The Effects of Categorically Based Expectations on Minority Influence: The Importance of Congruence

The role of congruence and incongruence in diverse decision-making groups is examined by manipulating opinion agreement within and between members of different social categories. Congruence occurs when ingroup members agree with one another and outgroup members disagree, whereas incongruence occurs when an ingroup member disagrees with a majority composed of ingroup and outgroup members. The results of two studies, one using a scenario methodology and the second using simulated work teams with two ingroup members and one outgroup member, show that regardless of the task-relevance of salient differences, individuals respond most favorably when categorical and opinion differences are congruent. Study 1 examined individuals’ emotional reactions and group efficacy. Study 2 examined group performance, the minority influence process, and efforts to maintain congruence. The findings suggest that outgroup minority opinion holders may be more influential in diverse group decision-making settings than ingroup minority opinion holders.

Surface-Level Diversity and Decision-Making in Groups: When Does Deep-Level Similarity Help?

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.

When What You Know Is Not Enough: Expertise and Gender Dynamics in Task Groups

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.

Is the Pain Worth the Gain? The Advantages and Liabilities of Agreeing With Socially Distinct Newcomers

The impact of diversity on group functioning is multifaceted. Exploring the impact of having a newcomer join a group, the authors conducted a 2 (social similarity of newcomer to oldtimers; in-group or out-group) × 3 (opinion agreement: newcomer has no opinion ally, one opinion ally, or two opinion allies) interacting group experiment with four-person groups. Groups with out-group newcomers (i.e., diverse groups) reported less confidence in their performance and perceived their interactions as less effective, yet they performed better than groups with in-group newcomers (i.e., homogeneous groups). Moreover, performance gains were not due to newcomers bringing new ideas to the group discussion. Instead, the results demonstrate that the mere presence of socially distinct newcomers and the social concerns their presence stimulates among oldtimers motivates behavior that can convert affective pains into cognitive gains.

Maximizing the Gains and Minimizing the Pains of Diversity: A Policy Perspective.

Empirical evidence reveals that diversity—heterogeneity in race, culture, gender, etc.—has material benefits for organizations, communities, and nations. However, because diversity can also incite detrimental forms of conflict and resentment, its benefits are not always realized. Drawing on research from multiple disciplines, this article offers recommendations for how best to harness the benefits of diversity. First, we highlight how two forms of diversity—the diversity present in groups, communities, and nations, and the diversity acquired by individuals through their personal experiences (e.g., living abroad)—enable effective decision making, innovation, and economic growth by promoting deeper information processing and complex thinking. Second, we identify methods to remove barriers that limit the amount of diversity and opportunity in organizations. Third, we describe practices, including inclusive multiculturalism and perspective taking, that can help manage diversity without engendering resistance. Finally, we propose a number of policies that can maximize the gains and minimize the pains of diversity.

Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research: Should We Be Explaining the Effects of Homogeneity?

It is often surprisingly difficult to make definitive scientific statements about the functional value of group diversity. We suggest that one clear pattern in the group diversity literature is the prevailing convention of interpreting outcomes as the effect of diversity alone. Although work in this arena typically compares diverse groups with homogeneous ones, we most often conceive of homogeneous groups as a baseline—a reference point from which we can understand how diversity has changed behavior or what type of response is “normal.” In this article, we offer a new perspective through a focus on two propositions. The first proposition is that homogeneity has independent effects of its own—effects that, in some cases, are robust in comparison with the effects of diversity. The second proposition is that even though subjective responses in homogeneous groups are often treated as a neutral indicator of how people would ideally respond in a group setting, evidence suggests that these responses are often less objective or accurate than responses in diverse groups. Overall, we believe that diversity research may unwittingly reveal important insights regarding the effects of homogeneity.

Getting Closer at the Company Party: Integration Experiences, Racial Dissimilarity, and Workplace Relationships

Using survey data from two distinct samples, we found that reported integration behaviors (e.g., attending company parties, discussing nonwork matters with colleagues) were associated with closer relationships among coworkers but that this effect was qualified by an interaction effect. Racial dissimilarity moderated the relationship between integration and closeness such that integration was positively associated with relationship closeness for those who were demographically similar to their coworkers, but not for those who were demographically dissimilar from their coworkers. Additionally, this moderation effect was mediated by the extent to which respondents experienced comfort and enjoyment when integrating. These findings highlight the importance of creating the right kind of interactions for building closer relationships between employees, particularly relationships that span racial boundaries.

Negational Categorization and Intergroup Behavior

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.

The pros and cons of dyadic side conversations in small groups: The impact of group norms and task type

This research explores the impact of dyadic side conversations on group norms within three- and four-person groups. The authors 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 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 increased openness to unique information, disagreement, and group performance.

Getting Even or Being at Odds? Cohesion in Even-and Odd-Sized Small Groups

We propose that even-sized small groups often experience lower cohesion than odd-sized small groups. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate this effect within three-to six-person groups of freshman roommates and sibling groups, respectively. Study 3 replicates the basic even/odd effect among three-to five-person groups in a laboratory experiment that examines underlying mechanisms. To account for the even/odd effect, Study 3 focuses on the groups ability to provide members with certainty and identifies majority influence as the key instrument. We argue that groups struggle to provide certainty when they lack majorities (e.g., deadlocked coalitions) or contain unstable majorities (i.e., where small changes in opinion readily overturn existing power arrangements). Member uncertainty mediated the effects of coalition structure on cohesion. The results link structural variables (i.e., even/odd size and coalition structure) to psychological outcomes (i.e., member uncertainty and relational outcomes).