Susan E. Brodt

Cultural mosaic beliefs as a new measure of the psychological climate for diversity: Individual distinctiveness and synergy in culturally diverse teams

This article introduces the concept of cultural mosaic beliefs (CMBs) as a component of effective multicultural work groups. Building on theories of group diversity and self-verification, and responding to calls to understand moderators that explain the impact of group diversity on performance outcomes, we conceptualize CMBs as a psychological climate that individual group members perceive to promote the recognition, acceptance and expression, and utilization of cultural diversity (values, traditions, and practices) in their work. We also propose that CMBs might attenuate conflict that can sometimes characterize culturally diverse work groups distinguishing groups that falter from those that flourish and benefit from the informational and other potential advantages associated with their diverse cultural composition. In a series of five studies (N = 1119), we develop a 17-item CMB scale comprised of three factors: perceived group diversity, cultural acceptance and expression, and culture utilization. We present evidence of convergent and discriminant validity, showing that the CMB scale is related to but distinct from other measures of diversity. We also demonstrate predictive validity, showing that the CMB scale is related to work group members’ identification with the group, commitment to the group, satisfaction with the group, and learning from the group. We conclude by proposing applications of our CMBs concept and measure to multicultural workplaces and offer future directions for research on cultural diversity, specifically the study of group CMBs as a moderator of cultural diversity’s effects on groups.

Chapter 5 The curious relationship between fairness and trust in teams: when unfair treatment begets trust, fair process erodes trust, and unfair restitution restores trust

Purpose – Trust and justice are generally considered distinct but closely related constructs. Individual perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness have been shown to reciprocally influence one another, each independently promoting trust (Colquitt & Mueller, 2007). We consider instances where these may instead diverge: how intentional efforts to build trust may unintentionally erode justice, and how the use of fair procedures may reduce trust. Approach – We argue that the anomalous divergences between trust and justice are evident only when simultaneously considering judgments at two levels: the interpersonal level (i.e., within dyads inside the team) and the team level (i.e., shared perceptions of all team members). Implications for research and practice – The unintended effects described in this chapter describe a “dark side” to a number of taken-for-granted practices in organizational life (favor-paying, punishment processes, and approaches to redress). We expect that this chapter should promote new research using the team context to bridge the trust and justice literatures, and provoke a careful reconsideration among practitioners of these approaches. Originality – We propose three previously overlooked disjunctures between trust and justice. First, we show how procedurally unfair approaches to allocating favors may be beneficial in building dyadic trust between team members. Next, we describe how fair (open and transparent) group processes for punishing perpetrators may erode trust by skewing group members’ perceptions of the prevalence of trust violations. Finally, we describe how the most effective forms of redress at the interpersonal level may provoke perceptions of injustice at the team level.

Trust and Employment Negotiations: The Importance of Feeling in Control

Two studies examined the effects of open communication and perceived control on interpersonal trust in employment negotiations. In a simulated negotiation, participants adopted the role of job applicant and encountered a series of offers (concessions) from their prospective manager. Information disclosed by their prospective manager varied creating different degrees of openness. As well, in Study 1 participants evaluated each offer (or concession) and their level of trust in their prospective manager at each stage of the bargaining process creating an impression of control; in Study 2 participants made these assessments after the negotiation. Taken together, the results of these studies showed that perceived process control was more important than information disclosure, in the formation of trust in negotiations. Moreover, trust was contingent upon evidence of process control despite the managers openness, or willingness, to share information with the applicant. Furthermore, the more trust was attributed to the manager, the more likely the applicant was to find the job offer attractive and subsequently accept the job offer. The implications of these findings for negotiation theory and research are discussed.